Care to state the argument -- that 3 * 0.333... = 0.999... -- in terms of limits? I brought up limits only because I think it's useful to look at 0.999... as a number approaching 1 as the number of digits to the right approaches infinity. I still don't see how x * 0.333... equals 0.999... (rather than 1) as x approaches 3.
Well, no. In ALL cases where f(x) exists, the limit of n as n approaches x is ALWAYS f(x). It is the same thing.
Key words being "where f(x) exists".
Kindly explain to me how 0.333... * 3 = 1, if 0.999... != 1
I can't unless I explain it in terms of fractions. Getting 0.999... from 0.333... strikes me as an artifact of notation rather than one of quantity, but I admit this is something I can't prove.
Well, if you follow the the "logic" of original complaint: No matter how far back you get, there's a 3 at the same place in all three numbers, and that adds to 9. That 9 isn't going to get a 1 added to it and start a domino effect to magically make it change.:-)
That's an interesting and appealing point, but intuitively it seems to me like looking at the problem from the wrong direction (left to right rather than right to left). Don't know what to make of it, though.
Yes, yes it is. In fact that's the easiest way to calculate the limit if the function is defined at that point. It's just that functions that are defined at the limit you're looking for aren't particularly interesting. Limits get more interesting at asymptotes and infinity where you can't just plug in y into f(x).
In specific cases the limit of an equation as x approaches y does indeed equal the equation at x = y, but it doesn't work as a general rule therefore you can't say it's the same thing.
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?
You do get 1 = 1, but you don't get 1 = 0.999... like you claim you do. By analogy with limits, the limit of an equation as x approaches y is not the same as the same equation evaluated at x = y.
And since the two sums are exactly equal, 0.999... equals 1. It's not really that magic, and your normal daily life will not be affected. It is, however, true.
Except that nothing you've stated proves that 0.333... + 0.333... + 0.333... = 0.999..., thus making your argument an example of circular logic.
Actually, people have been killed by RC planes and helicopters. They may look like toys, but except for the ones that are literally sold as children's toys they should always be flown with caution.
This is what happens when allegedly infringing websites are shut down without so much as a trial, and precisely the reason why laws like COICA are so dangerous. In court you at least have the chance to prove that your actions are not infringing, but in this case the owners of the shut down domains aren't given the chance to establish their innocence in court. If DHS says you're guilty, you're guilty.
Imagine if the same standard were applied to other alleged offenses. Posted something allegedly obscene? Down goes your website, no trial necessary. Posted innocent pictures of your kids that others think are indecent? Down goes your website, no trial necessary. Said some nasty things about minorities? Down goes your website, no trial necessary -- and so on, ad nauseam.
The Internet is neutral at the protocol level, but ISPs don't have to be. It's the ISPs we're worried about.
True "neutrality" comes from competition.
I want to offer what my competitor can not. How exactly is that neutral?
Now you have the government (and those that control the government) dictating to you the consumer.
Or not. Net Neutrality proponents want government to ensure unrestricted access to Internet content and services. It's exactly the opposite of being dictated to.
...because part of the goal of net neutrality is to bring "everyone up" to a certain level of broadband.
No, it isn't. The goal is to prevent ISPs from tampering with people's connections.
But what about the "blocking" of peer to peer for example you say? Again competition is the cure not regulation.
Unless none of the competitors see any advantage in allowing P2P on their networks. Regulation is better than competition at ensuring ISPs can't do that sort of thing.
The FCC is already pining for the power to shut down websites without due process
The Feds are already doing that, without the FCC. As I'm sure you know, no Network Neutrality proponent wants the government to have such power.
I suggest changing providers or moving to a location with more competition, not regulating the rest of us that are happy with our broadband or slowing innovation.
You could move to a country where no such regulations exist, but I wouldn't be so condescending as to suggest it to you as a viable alternative.
Instead of the UN deciding on a set of regulations governments may/may not/must adopt, what we need is for countries to stop imposing their laws upon other counties.
If Wikileaks were deemed illegal in the US but not in Country X, the system should guarantee the US will not be able to shut down any servers located in Country X, and neither should any country other than Country X where the content is hosted. Same thing for domain name seizures or any other action that effectively blocks content beyond the borders of the country where such content is illegal.
It's not just France, though. There's also the Great Firewall of China, the Great Australian Firewall, the US Department of Homeland Security shutting down domains (with COICA in the works to make take-downs even easier), and probably others I'm not aware of.
The Internet was a nice experiment in global freedom of expression, but now that governments are catching up those freedoms are beginning to disappear.
"Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies... of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies... under section 106, actionable under section 501."
"Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies... of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies... under section 106, actionable under section 501."
"You're right, poor choice of words. It's about good made outside the US, not bought outside the US. Thanks for clarifying..."
Wrong. It's not about goods made outside the US, but about goods imported illegally into the US. Read the 9th Circuit's decision if you don't yet understand the distinction.
While the 9th Circuit's ruling is unfortunate, it's not quite as bad as not being allowed to resell any items manufactured overseas. Whereas the 9th Circuit's decision applies to goods obtained overseas, goods legally imported into the United States would still be protected by the first-sale doctrine.
The decision still sucks, though. Not only do I think it's a perversion of copyright law to add a copyrighted logo to a watch in order to prevent importation that would otherwise be perfectly legitimate, but I also think it's a perversion of justice for copyright law to bar unauthorized importation of nonpiratical copies the way it currently does.
Good thing Venezuela doesn't have the power to arbitrarily take down infringing domains like the US does. There's no better way to highlight the fact the US has way too much power over the Internet than to look at what other governments would do given the powers the US assumes for itself.
You'd think a just legal system would first require the state prove its claim that a particular website is indeed infringing, but that kind of thing is apparently not important to the Obama administration. Napster at least got the benefit of a trial: In court you can argue your practices don't constitute contributory infringement, even if you end up losing like Napster did. In the future, it seems, you won't even have the benefit of a trial.
The entertainment industry is finally getting a return on its cash investment in the Obama administration.
People like to say the Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it, but it's not really true. When you control the channel between your citizens and restricted content or otherwise control the infrastructure that makes the Internet possible, you also control and can censor the Internet to a significant degree.
The United States' recent actions (Homeland Security seizing "infringing" domains; American companies being pressured into dropping Wikileaks) are good examples of this.
Jefferson is dead, and, in any case, none of the words you've cited appear in the US Constitution. I, for one, am glad the Supreme Court has the right to overturn and make void such laws as the Constitution prohibits.
"Certainly there's not a word in the Constitution that gives them power to negate what the Legislature duly-passed and the Executive signed."
Nonsense. Here are some relevant words for you:
"Congress shall make no law..."
and
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The electrons comprising the files in question are physically in the US. The magnetic fields on my hard drive once I've downloaded a torrent are physically in the US. How is it different?
When the US government seizes counterfeit merchandise located in the United States, only the merchandise found in the US is affected. When the US government seizes domain names of foreign websites, "electrons comprising the files" in the US are not the only ones affected.
No, by that logic China should be able to block American websites from Chinese access and deny them.cn TLDs. Nothing about shutting them down, nobody said US government should be able to seize servers on foreign soil either. The entire debate was about seizing US domain names.
So while China only gets to shut down.cn domains, the United States gets to shut down not only.us domains but also.com,.net and.org domains? How convenient for the United States.
I hold that no country should be able to seize.com,.net and.org domains for websites hosted outside their own jurisdiction.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody expects the random inquisition. Our chief weapon is surprise. Surprise and fear, fear and surprise...
Care to state the argument -- that 3 * 0.333... = 0.999... -- in terms of limits? I brought up limits only because I think it's useful to look at 0.999... as a number approaching 1 as the number of digits to the right approaches infinity. I still don't see how x * 0.333... equals 0.999... (rather than 1) as x approaches 3.
Interesting. I'm stumped.
Key words being "where f(x) exists".
I can't unless I explain it in terms of fractions. Getting 0.999... from 0.333... strikes me as an artifact of notation rather than one of quantity, but I admit this is something I can't prove.
That's an interesting and appealing point, but intuitively it seems to me like looking at the problem from the wrong direction (left to right rather than right to left). Don't know what to make of it, though.
In specific cases the limit of an equation as x approaches y does indeed equal the equation at x = y, but it doesn't work as a general rule therefore you can't say it's the same thing.
You do get 1 = 1, but you don't get 1 = 0.999... like you claim you do. By analogy with limits, the limit of an equation as x approaches y is not the same as the same equation evaluated at x = y.
Except that nothing you've stated proves that 0.333... + 0.333... + 0.333... = 0.999..., thus making your argument an example of circular logic.
He said he quit visiting Wikipedia due to its begging campaign, and that he quit contributing to Wikipedia because of Wikipedia's editors.
Cue millions of really disappointed teenage girls.
Actually, people have been killed by RC planes and helicopters. They may look like toys, but except for the ones that are literally sold as children's toys they should always be flown with caution.
This is what happens when allegedly infringing websites are shut down without so much as a trial, and precisely the reason why laws like COICA are so dangerous. In court you at least have the chance to prove that your actions are not infringing, but in this case the owners of the shut down domains aren't given the chance to establish their innocence in court. If DHS says you're guilty, you're guilty.
Imagine if the same standard were applied to other alleged offenses. Posted something allegedly obscene? Down goes your website, no trial necessary. Posted innocent pictures of your kids that others think are indecent? Down goes your website, no trial necessary. Said some nasty things about minorities? Down goes your website, no trial necessary -- and so on, ad nauseam.
The Internet is neutral at the protocol level, but ISPs don't have to be. It's the ISPs we're worried about.
I want to offer what my competitor can not. How exactly is that neutral?
Or not. Net Neutrality proponents want government to ensure unrestricted access to Internet content and services. It's exactly the opposite of being dictated to.
No, it isn't. The goal is to prevent ISPs from tampering with people's connections.
Unless none of the competitors see any advantage in allowing P2P on their networks. Regulation is better than competition at ensuring ISPs can't do that sort of thing.
The Feds are already doing that, without the FCC. As I'm sure you know, no Network Neutrality proponent wants the government to have such power.
You could move to a country where no such regulations exist, but I wouldn't be so condescending as to suggest it to you as a viable alternative.
Instead of the UN deciding on a set of regulations governments may/may not/must adopt, what we need is for countries to stop imposing their laws upon other counties.
If Wikileaks were deemed illegal in the US but not in Country X, the system should guarantee the US will not be able to shut down any servers located in Country X, and neither should any country other than Country X where the content is hosted. Same thing for domain name seizures or any other action that effectively blocks content beyond the borders of the country where such content is illegal.
It's not just France, though. There's also the Great Firewall of China, the Great Australian Firewall, the US Department of Homeland Security shutting down domains (with COICA in the works to make take-downs even easier), and probably others I'm not aware of.
The Internet was a nice experiment in global freedom of expression, but now that governments are catching up those freedoms are beginning to disappear.
17 U.S.C. 602(a):
"Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies ... of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies ... under section 106, actionable under section 501."
It sucks, but it's the law.
From 17 U.S.C. 602(a):
"Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies ... of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies ... under section 106, actionable under section 501."
"You're right, poor choice of words. It's about good made outside the US, not bought outside the US. Thanks for clarifying..."
Wrong. It's not about goods made outside the US, but about goods imported illegally into the US. Read the 9th Circuit's decision if you don't yet understand the distinction.
While the 9th Circuit's ruling is unfortunate, it's not quite as bad as not being allowed to resell any items manufactured overseas. Whereas the 9th Circuit's decision applies to goods obtained overseas, goods legally imported into the United States would still be protected by the first-sale doctrine.
The decision still sucks, though. Not only do I think it's a perversion of copyright law to add a copyrighted logo to a watch in order to prevent importation that would otherwise be perfectly legitimate, but I also think it's a perversion of justice for copyright law to bar unauthorized importation of nonpiratical copies the way it currently does.
Good thing Venezuela doesn't have the power to arbitrarily take down infringing domains like the US does. There's no better way to highlight the fact the US has way too much power over the Internet than to look at what other governments would do given the powers the US assumes for itself.
You'd think a just legal system would first require the state prove its claim that a particular website is indeed infringing, but that kind of thing is apparently not important to the Obama administration. Napster at least got the benefit of a trial: In court you can argue your practices don't constitute contributory infringement, even if you end up losing like Napster did. In the future, it seems, you won't even have the benefit of a trial.
The entertainment industry is finally getting a return on its cash investment in the Obama administration.
People like to say the Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it, but it's not really true. When you control the channel between your citizens and restricted content or otherwise control the infrastructure that makes the Internet possible, you also control and can censor the Internet to a significant degree.
The United States' recent actions (Homeland Security seizing "infringing" domains; American companies being pressured into dropping Wikileaks) are good examples of this.
Jefferson is dead, and, in any case, none of the words you've cited appear in the US Constitution. I, for one, am glad the Supreme Court has the right to overturn and make void such laws as the Constitution prohibits.
Nonsense. Here are some relevant words for you:
"Congress shall make no law..."
and
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
When the US government seizes counterfeit merchandise located in the United States, only the merchandise found in the US is affected. When the US government seizes domain names of foreign websites, "electrons comprising the files" in the US are not the only ones affected.
So while China only gets to shut down .cn domains, the United States gets to shut down not only .us domains but also .com, .net and .org domains? How convenient for the United States.
I hold that no country should be able to seize .com, .net and .org domains for websites hosted outside their own jurisdiction.