Only a handful of commercial DVDs use both sides for the same movie, requiring the watcher to manually reverse the disk part-way, and the ones that do are generally very long (over three hour) "epics" which cannot fit on one side at standard bitrates. The use of both sides, in other words, does not significantly improve the bitrate or quality compared to shorter movies which do fit on one side.
If you think an average standard-definition DVD "looks like CRAP", particularly in the context of online streaming, fine. You are welcome to your opinion, but you should at least acknowledge that very few others will share it.
Um, no, rich people are rich because their parents are rich
So how did their parents get rich? Are you opposed to parent giving their kids gifts out of their own hard-earned resources?
and their friends are rich
I'd love to see your reasoning behind this one. Sure, rich people often have rich friends—like seeks like—but what makes you think having rich friends is what makes someone rich? And even if it does, so what? Developing beneficial personal relationships is a perfectly legitimate skill.
and they get lucky.
I say people make their own luck. Sure, a few fortunate individuals may win the lottery, at the expense of the rest of those who choseto play, but many (most?) of them lose it all just as quickly. Some take a gamble and win big, but only at the much higher risk of losing big. Either way, taking that kind of risk doesn't harm anyone else. However, most who manage to improve their lot significantly and stay there do so because they work hard, save their income, and invest it wisely.
Of course, most people will never go from "dirt poor" to "billionaire" in a single step; much like winning the Olympics, or any other large-scale competition, that kind of fast progress takes both above-average natural ability and the right kinds of opportunities, though it still isn't automatic: one must use those abilities and seize those opportunities. More realistic, wide-spread progress requires a generational approach, with parents passing down their own capital investments and economic wisdom to their children.
But then, you objected to inheriting wealth, so I oppose in your world only those "lucky" enough to make billionaire in one generation get to be rich: welcome to the third world.
What's that? Are you laughing at the proposition that politicians of any stripe are wise or virtuous? Well, the Founding Fathers believed that democracy could not function any other way...
Well, they were right: democracy—direct or representative—doesn't work. The larger and more diverse the group is, the more quickly it breaks down. It only really works when you have nearly unanimous support for the majority position, which rarely attains for long in real life.
Note that I'm not saying that any other system of government would work better under realistic conditions; they all ultimately suffer from the same flaw, in that they put some humans (regardless of how they're selected) in a position of aggressive political power over others, and bless that arrangement with a false stamp of legitimacy. The only real difference between systems of government lies not in how they govern, but in how much they govern. An absolute, hereditary dictatorship which makes very few demands on its populace, however arbitrary, can still be far superior to a egalitarian democratic republic which insists on interfering deeply in its citizens private lives.
I understood the thread just fine the first time, thanks.
I happen to agree with the KDE developers that an RDBMS is the right solution for the areas in which they are using one, or at least no worse than any of the alternatives. They are not "pushing a pet project"; on the contrary, they have quite competently selected the tools which best address the needs of their project. This is particularly true in comparison to the ad-hoc "solutions" you have advocated, such as CSV files (seriously?), flat files, XML, and unstructured key-value stores, which would without doubt require more work than adopting a "true" RDBMS even if one never uses the latter to its fullest capabilities.
As for SQLite, there is absolutely no advantage, from a complexity standpoint in, using SQLite rather than embedded MySQL for any non-trivial database. Moreover, the MySQL databases have a number of useful features not found in SQLite, including a real type system, better sharing/locking, and API compatibility with the full MySQL server. Of course, for Nepomuk, which primarily deals with RDF-formatted data, the Virtuoso database system is a much better fit than either SQLite or MySQL, having been specifically designed for such data.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that KDE uses relational databases for configuration files. Actually, most KDE configuration files use a simple, standardized INI-like syntax supported by the KDE libraries, just like in KDE3. Some applications use XML for their own application-specific data. Relational databases are used for the Nepomuk repository (Virtuoso), the Akonadi cache (embedded MySQL), and Amarok's media database (embedded MySQL), all of which hold real relational data and require support for efficient updates.
Obviously I can be wrong here, but it sure smells like someone with an irrational dislike for SQL simply decided to complain about it simply because they could rather than because it made any real sense to do so. But, speculation is speculation...
For what possible reason do they require a true RDBMS rather than something like bdb or even sqlite if you want to get crazy?
KDE uses embedded MySQL by default, which is basically like SQLite. There is no dedicated server, and the databases themselves are stored in files of the applications' choosing. The advantage of this approach is that it makes it is completely compatible with the full MySQL server, so applications like Amarok and services like Nepomuk can support both lightweight embedded databases and external MySQL databases without changing any code (beyond actually opening the database).
But frankly, why wouldn't you simply use xml (bottom of the list), flat files, csvs, or some such thing behind a configuration server?
Perhaps because that would actually be more work than simply using an existing library designed for storing relational data? Just a thought.
Of course there is no need. So far as that goes you can write absolutely any program in just two symbols: 0 and 1. However, just as there is value in using ASCII characters and human-readable syntax in preference to opaque binary code, there may also be value in using more natural Unicode glyphs rather than forcing every idea to be expressed in the limited ASCII symbol set. Mathematicians certainly seem to think so, anyway—even in formal computer science, the use of ASCII tends to be more of an exception than a rule.
the simplest programming tools for editing are straightfoward ASCII text editors: vi and... emacs
Modern versions of both VIM and EMACS support Unicode text files, provided you use either the GUI interface or a UTF-8 terminal.
the end-result is that every... programmer who wants to contribute must not only install Kanji, Cyrillic, Chinese and Greek unicode fonts, but also they must be able to read and understand Kanji, Cyrillic, Chinese and Greek
Short of forcing everyone to comment their code in English, you're going to have that problem anyway. Fixing it is a matter of enforcing suitable commenting standards; the mere fact that you can comment your code naturally in many languages doesn't mean you have to use them all in the same project.
then, also, you have the issue of revision control, diffs and patches
Granted, but this is just a matter of improving the tools slightly. Compared to implementing a whole new language, supporting Unicode in a handful of diff/patch tools and revision management systems would be trivial—not to mention well worth doing in its own right—particularly given the existence of stable Unicode-handling libraries like ICU.
you also have to stop using standard xterm and standard console for development, and move to a Unicode-capable terminal, but you also have to update the unix commands "more" and "less" to be able to display unicode diffs
The standard xterm already supports UTF-8. Just put "XTerm.vt100.utf8: 2" in your.Xdefaults, or pass the "-u8" option on the command-line. I don't use "more" very much, but I've never had trouble displaying UTF-8 text with "less" in a UTF-8 locale (LANG="en_US.UTF-8").
You shouldn't need a copyright license in the first place; they are the one making the copies. You aren't distributing copies or derivative works, or making a "public performance" of the page. No license is required simply to view copyrighted content.
Since you brought it up, the GPL is not an EULA. You don't need to agree to the GPL just to use software distributed under it. You only need to agree to it if you want to distribute copies or derivative works. Copyright, not the GPL, is what takes away your natural rights; the GPL just gives some of them back, provided you reciprocate.
The only legal principle I know of which would come close to justifying their response would be harassment, if they specifically asked you to stop sending requests to their server and you continued anyway. However, that generally requires both intent to harass (e.g. a DoS attack) and direct interaction; simply posting arbitrary "terms of service" wouldn't count, particularly since they know very few visitors will ever follow that near-invisible link they buried in the small print at the bottom of the page.
As such, if your copy of Windows injures you, you can't sue Bill Gates, you can sue Microsoft.
This is a problem. Limited liability for actual harm—as opposed to just corporate debts—is one of the areas in which I feel corporate personhood goes much too far. You should be able to sue the owner, as an individual, or anyone else involved, if they are ultimately responsible for an injury.
Bill Gates' treasury is whatever is in Bill Gates bank account, he can not simply start spending Microsoft's money on hookers and blackjack.
If he actually were the owner then, so far as I know, there would be no legal barrier to prevent him from spending as much of "Microsoft's" money as he wished toward his own personal goals, although this would, of course, be classified as personal income from the corporation and taxed accordingly.
If those shareholders want to speak out politically, as a group, they can form a PAC to do so, but the corporation is not structured or intended to be a force-multiplier for the shareholders political ambitions, it's structured intended to make software/make widgets/sell shoes/whatever.
How the corporation is structured is up to the shareholders, as is the "intent" of the corporation. After all, it is the shareholders who formed the corporation in the first place to manage their collective assets, and thus determined its intent and organization; nothing prevents them from altering either whenever they please. If, that is, they need to alter it; most corporations' goals are hardly as specific as you appear to believe. The formal "intent" is generally just to pursue financial benefit to the shareholders, by any legal means available, rather than a specific type of product or service. Political action is well within that scope.
I know Bill Gates is not the "owner" but for sake of argument let's suppose he is. He has the right to speak and hire lobbyists out of his OWN pocket. But Microsoft should have zero right to spend the money out of its own Treasury, because MS has no more rights than a building. It's a Thing not a person.
I think you're still missing the point. If Bill Gates is the owner of Microsoft then Microsoft's treasury is Bill Gate's treasury, whether he is acting as owner of Microsoft or just as himself. As you have repeatedly pointed out, corporations aren't people, so they can't actually own anything; the assets which "belong" to the corporation actually belong to the corporations' owner(s).
If Bill Gates owns Microsoft then Microsoft is Bill Gates, and it makes no sense to talk of rights Bill Gates has but Microsoft does not. Similarly, as any public corporation is owned by its shareholders, the corporation is its shareholders, and it makes no sense to speak of rights the shareholders have as individuals which they cannot exercise while acting as a group, i.e. as the corporation.
A corporation is not a distinct, independent person in its own right, but it is a group of individual shareholders, with all the natural rights those individuals collectively hold.
For example Microsoft employees retain their rights, but the actual Microsoft, which is as inanimate as a building, should have no rights.
What do Microsoft's employees have to do with anything? Employees are not members of the group; they are independent entities with a specific relation to the group. The group's members are the shareholders or partners of the corporation.
If the owner of MS wants to speak let him speak as *himself* while the building remains silent. If the owner wants to hire lobbyists, let him hire them using his OWN money, while MS money is forbidden from hiring lobbyists.
I think you misunderstand the meaning of "owner". If the owner(s) of Microsoft speak as a group then Microsoft is speaking; the two are identical. If Microsoft spends money then the owner(s) are spending their own money; what Microsoft owns, they own.
The idea of corporate personhood can obviously be taken to unreasonable extremes, but as it regards speaking and spending money there is no natural difference between the owners of a corporation doing such things collectively, as the corporation, or simply as individuals with similar interests cooperating for mutual advantage.
abstaining is a vote of "I don't care", but actually spoiling your ballot is a way to indicate you have no confidence in any of the candidates
So how would one indicate a lack of confidence in the system, as opposed to the specific candidates? Abstaining is not simply a way of expressing apathy; it can also indicate that one finds the office itself illegitimate.
Also, from a pragmatic point-of-view, spoiled ballots tend to be reported and counted exactly the same as uncast ballots, so showing up just to cast a spoiled ballot is a complete waste of time (yours and the officials') regardless of the reason.
I would not consider being effectively banned from using any modern computer (or smartphone, etc.) a "minor" punishment. If that was not the judge's intent then the court clearly does not understand the implications of its own sentence. They even specifically lifted the ban on using social networks, but it is impossible to log in to most social networks without HTTPS, which requires encryption software.
You have to attest, under penalty of perjury, that you own or hold rights to the work that you're reporting as infringing.
That's not quite true, although the difference is subtle:
US Code, Chapter 5, Title 17, Section 512(c):
(3) ELEMENTS OF NOTIFICATION-
(A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:
(i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
(ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.
(iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.
(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.
(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
Note that the only part of the notice actually subject to penalty of perjury is "a statement.. that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed" (emphasis added). They can ask for material to be taken down which is not related in the slightest to the exclusive privilege they are claiming it infringes without committing perjury under the rules established here. Of course, there may be other consequences for filing false takedown notices.
I strongly object to equating adoption to marriage. The latter is a right, the former is not. Nobody has right to adopt children.
On the contrary, no one has a right to prevent someone else form adopting a child, provided the child wants to be adopted. Similarly, no one has the right to coerce a child into stay against his/her will, not even the biological parents.
Perhaps that's what you meant anyway, but if so then it is on exactly the same level as marriage. Two individuals have the right to enter into voluntary associations, whether that be as spouses in marriage or as child and guardian in adoption, without interference from outsiders.
The characterization problem is most people like to ignore the shortcomings of their philosophy which exaggerating others.
No, the characterization problem is with calling an area a "libertarian paradise" when it is, in fact, nothing of the sort. A "libertarian paradise" is a society without aggression, period. Somalia obviously does not qualify.
As for "shortcomings", these can only be considered with respect to one's goals. The goals of liberalism are not compatible with the goals of libertarianism, and it makes no sense to condemn either one for failing to meet the other's standards. Any comparison must start by defining a common set of goals against which the philosophy will be measured, based on the audience to which you are attempting to appeal.
If you want to appeal to libertarians, point out how liberalism can reduce aggression via centralized defense. If you want to appeal to liberals, point out how libertarianism can produce more efficient private social services.
Especially, don't reply to a libertarian by pointing out how liberalism is more effective at implementing regulations and taxes. If they thought fighting "power [of] private actors" and providing "public infrastructure" justified these means they wouldn't be libertarians in the first place.
Libertarians like to ignore the power private actors can hold in absence of regulation.
Libertarians care about aggression more than "power". If you believe that aggression is justified to combat non-aggressive power then the only conclusion you can draw is that you are not a libertarian. Limiting "power" is not one of the goals of libertarianism, ergo failing to do so is not a defect.
Libertarians like to forget to spend on the needed public infrastructure.
Libertarianism has absolutely nothing against spending on infrastructure for public use. However, once again, if you believe that aggression is justified to raise the funds then you are obviously not a libertarian. For libertarians, fighting aggression holds a higher priority than providing public goods. If it's possible to do both, great. If not, aggression is still not an option. This is not a shortcoming, but rather the whole point.
The inability to do which proves nothing other than the person in question can't think of such a number.
Right, but I'm not looking for a proof. I realize that my argument isn't a proof as stated. That's fine. I'm just looking for a way to get the other person to accept that 0.999... and 1 are the same number. Assuming that they brought up (and accept) the Dedekind cut concept, trying and failing to come up with any number in between should do more to persuade them than the argument in the summary.
As for proof, if we start from the principle that every real number has at least one decimal representation (possibly infinite) which can be compared digit-wise with any other real number's decimal representation, then it follows that 0.999... must be greater than any number whose decimal representation starts with "0." followed by any sequence of digits containing one or more digits which is not "9". Any real number greater than zero and less than one which is not 0.999... must contain a digit which is not "9" (since otherwise they would be equal), so any such number must be less than 0.999..., and not between 0.999... and one. Q.E.D.
You can create a 1:1 mapping from the unordered set to the ordered set...
Are you sure? How would you do that without imposing some kind of order on the unordered set? Simply choosing balls at random and assigning sequential numbers wouldn't work—for any natural number n, there are a finite number of balls numbered less than or equal to n, and an infinite number which are greater. That means (for any value of n) the odds of choosing a ball numbered less than or equal to n is zero, i.e. such balls will never be chosen, even after infinite choices. So even after removing the infinite set of balls numbered greater than n, there must always be another infinite set of balls left numbered less than or equal to n (with n --> infinity).
Basically, the ordered case removes every ball in the set (1...+inf), while the unordered case splits the infinite input set into two infinite subsets (1...n and n...+inf with n --> +inf) and only removes the second subset. Moreover, repeating the process would just keep splitting the remaining infinite subset into smaller (but still infinite) pieces.
Area of circle A (radius = 1 unit) = pi*r^2 = pi square units
Area of circle B (radius = 2 units) = pi*r^2 = 4*pi square units
Radio of the area of circle B to the area of circle A = (4*pi) / pi = 4
0.999... is indeed a static and constant number. It's also a convergent series and a limit. Specifically, 0.999... is another way of writing the infinite series
You're right, of course, that the value of 0.999... doesn't change over time "as you add on more 9s", but the same is true for any other limit or series. What changes over time as the limit or series is evaluated is just an approximation of the real value.
The reverse is also true, you can be conservative and not... Oh how do they put it, 'view Somalia as a libertarian paradise.'
Perhaps I'm just taking this the wrong way, but (assuming you group libertarians in with the "conservatives") you should know that it generally isn't the libertarians themselves who "view Somalia as a libertarian paradise." This is a categorization usually made by their opponents.
Libertarians are against aggression in general, of which government happens to be the largest source in most of the "civilized" world—made yet worse by its false shroud of "legitimacy"—but rule-by-tribal-elders (as practiced in Somalia) and the hypothetical rule-by-criminal-gangs scenario are just as thoroughly opposed. Moreover, many of the problems in Somalia exist specifically as a result of external powers attempting to prop up a succession of unwanted central governments in the region.
What I disagree with is that we're talking about numbers at all. I think we're talking about *notation*.
You can talk about notation all you want, but when I say that 0.999... = 1 I am definitely referring to the equality of the numbers, not the way they're written. Notation only comes into play when it comes to accepting that the same number can be written multiple ways.
Take your argument. You make the assumption you that there can be no number between 0.999... and 1. That's fine, but you've pretty much *assumed* the conclusion by ruling out a Dedekind cut between "0.999.." and "1", which the other side (if they understood more math) would disagree with.
Perhaps it was badly worded, but that was not intended as an assumption, but rather a challenge to anyone who may disagree to come up with some number between 0.999... and 1. If such a "cut" is possible then an example shouldn't be difficult to find, but it quickly becomes rather obvious to anyone who tries it that (0.999... + x) > 1 for any real (and thus finite) value of x > 0.
The proof in the summary is *much* better...
I don't disagree—it's certainly more consise—but I do think it's much less persuasive to the non-initiate. Anyone who has a problem with 0.999... = 1, generally because they think 0.999... is "just an approximation", is going to have a problem with 10a - a = 9 where a = 0.999..., since that obviously isn't quite true for any finite approximation of a (10*0.9999999 - 0.9999999 = 9.999999 - 0.9999999 = 8.9999991 != 9).
Slashdot Mirror
If you think an average standard-definition DVD "looks like CRAP", particularly in the context of online streaming, fine. You are welcome to your opinion, but you should at least acknowledge that very few others will share it.
I take it you don't watch many DVDs? The limit is 8.54 (10**9)bytes (=7.95 (2**30)bytes) for a standard single-sided disc.
Um, no, rich people are rich because their parents are rich
So how did their parents get rich? Are you opposed to parent giving their kids gifts out of their own hard-earned resources?
and their friends are rich
I'd love to see your reasoning behind this one. Sure, rich people often have rich friends—like seeks like—but what makes you think having rich friends is what makes someone rich? And even if it does, so what? Developing beneficial personal relationships is a perfectly legitimate skill.
and they get lucky.
I say people make their own luck. Sure, a few fortunate individuals may win the lottery, at the expense of the rest of those who choseto play, but many (most?) of them lose it all just as quickly. Some take a gamble and win big, but only at the much higher risk of losing big. Either way, taking that kind of risk doesn't harm anyone else. However, most who manage to improve their lot significantly and stay there do so because they work hard, save their income, and invest it wisely.
Of course, most people will never go from "dirt poor" to "billionaire" in a single step; much like winning the Olympics, or any other large-scale competition, that kind of fast progress takes both above-average natural ability and the right kinds of opportunities, though it still isn't automatic: one must use those abilities and seize those opportunities. More realistic, wide-spread progress requires a generational approach, with parents passing down their own capital investments and economic wisdom to their children.
But then, you objected to inheriting wealth, so I oppose in your world only those "lucky" enough to make billionaire in one generation get to be rich: welcome to the third world.
What's that? Are you laughing at the proposition that politicians of any stripe are wise or virtuous? Well, the Founding Fathers believed that democracy could not function any other way...
Well, they were right: democracy—direct or representative—doesn't work. The larger and more diverse the group is, the more quickly it breaks down. It only really works when you have nearly unanimous support for the majority position, which rarely attains for long in real life.
Note that I'm not saying that any other system of government would work better under realistic conditions; they all ultimately suffer from the same flaw, in that they put some humans (regardless of how they're selected) in a position of aggressive political power over others, and bless that arrangement with a false stamp of legitimacy. The only real difference between systems of government lies not in how they govern, but in how much they govern. An absolute, hereditary dictatorship which makes very few demands on its populace, however arbitrary, can still be far superior to a egalitarian democratic republic which insists on interfering deeply in its citizens private lives.
I understood the thread just fine the first time, thanks.
I happen to agree with the KDE developers that an RDBMS is the right solution for the areas in which they are using one, or at least no worse than any of the alternatives. They are not "pushing a pet project"; on the contrary, they have quite competently selected the tools which best address the needs of their project. This is particularly true in comparison to the ad-hoc "solutions" you have advocated, such as CSV files (seriously?), flat files, XML, and unstructured key-value stores, which would without doubt require more work than adopting a "true" RDBMS even if one never uses the latter to its fullest capabilities.
As for SQLite, there is absolutely no advantage, from a complexity standpoint in, using SQLite rather than embedded MySQL for any non-trivial database. Moreover, the MySQL databases have a number of useful features not found in SQLite, including a real type system, better sharing/locking, and API compatibility with the full MySQL server. Of course, for Nepomuk, which primarily deals with RDF-formatted data, the Virtuoso database system is a much better fit than either SQLite or MySQL, having been specifically designed for such data.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that KDE uses relational databases for configuration files. Actually, most KDE configuration files use a simple, standardized INI-like syntax supported by the KDE libraries, just like in KDE3. Some applications use XML for their own application-specific data. Relational databases are used for the Nepomuk repository (Virtuoso), the Akonadi cache (embedded MySQL), and Amarok's media database (embedded MySQL), all of which hold real relational data and require support for efficient updates.
Obviously I can be wrong here, but it sure smells like someone with an irrational dislike for SQL simply decided to complain about it simply because they could rather than because it made any real sense to do so. But, speculation is speculation...
For what possible reason do they require a true RDBMS rather than something like bdb or even sqlite if you want to get crazy?
KDE uses embedded MySQL by default, which is basically like SQLite. There is no dedicated server, and the databases themselves are stored in files of the applications' choosing. The advantage of this approach is that it makes it is completely compatible with the full MySQL server, so applications like Amarok and services like Nepomuk can support both lightweight embedded databases and external MySQL databases without changing any code (beyond actually opening the database).
But frankly, why wouldn't you simply use xml (bottom of the list), flat files, csvs, or some such thing behind a configuration server?
Perhaps because that would actually be more work than simply using an existing library designed for storing relational data? Just a thought.
Of course there is no need. So far as that goes you can write absolutely any program in just two symbols: 0 and 1. However, just as there is value in using ASCII characters and human-readable syntax in preference to opaque binary code, there may also be value in using more natural Unicode glyphs rather than forcing every idea to be expressed in the limited ASCII symbol set. Mathematicians certainly seem to think so, anyway—even in formal computer science, the use of ASCII tends to be more of an exception than a rule.
the simplest programming tools for editing are straightfoward ASCII text editors: vi and ... emacs
Modern versions of both VIM and EMACS support Unicode text files, provided you use either the GUI interface or a UTF-8 terminal.
the end-result is that every ... programmer who wants to contribute must not only install Kanji, Cyrillic, Chinese and Greek unicode fonts, but also they must be able to read and understand Kanji, Cyrillic, Chinese and Greek
Short of forcing everyone to comment their code in English, you're going to have that problem anyway. Fixing it is a matter of enforcing suitable commenting standards; the mere fact that you can comment your code naturally in many languages doesn't mean you have to use them all in the same project.
then, also, you have the issue of revision control, diffs and patches
Granted, but this is just a matter of improving the tools slightly. Compared to implementing a whole new language, supporting Unicode in a handful of diff/patch tools and revision management systems would be trivial—not to mention well worth doing in its own right—particularly given the existence of stable Unicode-handling libraries like ICU.
you also have to stop using standard xterm and standard console for development, and move to a Unicode-capable terminal, but you also have to update the unix commands "more" and "less" to be able to display unicode diffs
The standard xterm already supports UTF-8. Just put "XTerm.vt100.utf8: 2" in your .Xdefaults, or pass the "-u8" option on the command-line. I don't use "more" very much, but I've never had trouble displaying UTF-8 text with "less" in a UTF-8 locale (LANG="en_US.UTF-8").
You shouldn't need a copyright license in the first place; they are the one making the copies. You aren't distributing copies or derivative works, or making a "public performance" of the page. No license is required simply to view copyrighted content.
Since you brought it up, the GPL is not an EULA. You don't need to agree to the GPL just to use software distributed under it. You only need to agree to it if you want to distribute copies or derivative works. Copyright, not the GPL, is what takes away your natural rights; the GPL just gives some of them back, provided you reciprocate.
The only legal principle I know of which would come close to justifying their response would be harassment, if they specifically asked you to stop sending requests to their server and you continued anyway. However, that generally requires both intent to harass (e.g. a DoS attack) and direct interaction; simply posting arbitrary "terms of service" wouldn't count, particularly since they know very few visitors will ever follow that near-invisible link they buried in the small print at the bottom of the page.
As such, if your copy of Windows injures you, you can't sue Bill Gates, you can sue Microsoft.
This is a problem. Limited liability for actual harm—as opposed to just corporate debts—is one of the areas in which I feel corporate personhood goes much too far. You should be able to sue the owner, as an individual, or anyone else involved, if they are ultimately responsible for an injury.
Bill Gates' treasury is whatever is in Bill Gates bank account, he can not simply start spending Microsoft's money on hookers and blackjack.
If he actually were the owner then, so far as I know, there would be no legal barrier to prevent him from spending as much of "Microsoft's" money as he wished toward his own personal goals, although this would, of course, be classified as personal income from the corporation and taxed accordingly.
If those shareholders want to speak out politically, as a group, they can form a PAC to do so, but the corporation is not structured or intended to be a force-multiplier for the shareholders political ambitions, it's structured intended to make software/make widgets/sell shoes/whatever.
How the corporation is structured is up to the shareholders, as is the "intent" of the corporation. After all, it is the shareholders who formed the corporation in the first place to manage their collective assets, and thus determined its intent and organization; nothing prevents them from altering either whenever they please. If, that is, they need to alter it; most corporations' goals are hardly as specific as you appear to believe. The formal "intent" is generally just to pursue financial benefit to the shareholders, by any legal means available, rather than a specific type of product or service. Political action is well within that scope.
I know Bill Gates is not the "owner" but for sake of argument let's suppose he is. He has the right to speak and hire lobbyists out of his OWN pocket. But Microsoft should have zero right to spend the money out of its own Treasury, because MS has no more rights than a building. It's a Thing not a person.
I think you're still missing the point. If Bill Gates is the owner of Microsoft then Microsoft's treasury is Bill Gate's treasury, whether he is acting as owner of Microsoft or just as himself. As you have repeatedly pointed out, corporations aren't people, so they can't actually own anything; the assets which "belong" to the corporation actually belong to the corporations' owner(s).
If Bill Gates owns Microsoft then Microsoft is Bill Gates, and it makes no sense to talk of rights Bill Gates has but Microsoft does not. Similarly, as any public corporation is owned by its shareholders, the corporation is its shareholders, and it makes no sense to speak of rights the shareholders have as individuals which they cannot exercise while acting as a group, i.e. as the corporation.
A corporation is not a distinct, independent person in its own right, but it is a group of individual shareholders, with all the natural rights those individuals collectively hold.
For example Microsoft employees retain their rights, but the actual Microsoft, which is as inanimate as a building, should have no rights.
What do Microsoft's employees have to do with anything? Employees are not members of the group; they are independent entities with a specific relation to the group. The group's members are the shareholders or partners of the corporation.
If the owner of MS wants to speak let him speak as *himself* while the building remains silent. If the owner wants to hire lobbyists, let him hire them using his OWN money, while MS money is forbidden from hiring lobbyists.
I think you misunderstand the meaning of "owner". If the owner(s) of Microsoft speak as a group then Microsoft is speaking; the two are identical. If Microsoft spends money then the owner(s) are spending their own money; what Microsoft owns, they own.
The idea of corporate personhood can obviously be taken to unreasonable extremes, but as it regards speaking and spending money there is no natural difference between the owners of a corporation doing such things collectively, as the corporation, or simply as individuals with similar interests cooperating for mutual advantage.
abstaining is a vote of "I don't care", but actually spoiling your ballot is a way to indicate you have no confidence in any of the candidates
So how would one indicate a lack of confidence in the system, as opposed to the specific candidates? Abstaining is not simply a way of expressing apathy; it can also indicate that one finds the office itself illegitimate.
Also, from a pragmatic point-of-view, spoiled ballots tend to be reported and counted exactly the same as uncast ballots, so showing up just to cast a spoiled ballot is a complete waste of time (yours and the officials') regardless of the reason.
The module name is "rds"; "net-pf-21" is an alias, and stands for Network Packet Family #21.
I would not consider being effectively banned from using any modern computer (or smartphone, etc.) a "minor" punishment. If that was not the judge's intent then the court clearly does not understand the implications of its own sentence. They even specifically lifted the ban on using social networks, but it is impossible to log in to most social networks without HTTPS, which requires encryption software.
You have to attest, under penalty of perjury, that you own or hold rights to the work that you're reporting as infringing.
That's not quite true, although the difference is subtle:
US Code, Chapter 5, Title 17, Section 512(c):
(3) ELEMENTS OF NOTIFICATION-
(A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:
(i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
(ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.
(iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.
(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.
(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
Note that the only part of the notice actually subject to penalty of perjury is "a statement .. that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed" (emphasis added). They can ask for material to be taken down which is not related in the slightest to the exclusive privilege they are claiming it infringes without committing perjury under the rules established here. Of course, there may be other consequences for filing false takedown notices.
I strongly object to equating adoption to marriage. The latter is a right, the former is not. Nobody has right to adopt children.
On the contrary, no one has a right to prevent someone else form adopting a child, provided the child wants to be adopted. Similarly, no one has the right to coerce a child into stay against his/her will, not even the biological parents.
Perhaps that's what you meant anyway, but if so then it is on exactly the same level as marriage. Two individuals have the right to enter into voluntary associations, whether that be as spouses in marriage or as child and guardian in adoption, without interference from outsiders.
The characterization problem is most people like to ignore the shortcomings of their philosophy which exaggerating others.
No, the characterization problem is with calling an area a "libertarian paradise" when it is, in fact, nothing of the sort. A "libertarian paradise" is a society without aggression, period. Somalia obviously does not qualify.
As for "shortcomings", these can only be considered with respect to one's goals. The goals of liberalism are not compatible with the goals of libertarianism, and it makes no sense to condemn either one for failing to meet the other's standards. Any comparison must start by defining a common set of goals against which the philosophy will be measured, based on the audience to which you are attempting to appeal.
If you want to appeal to libertarians, point out how liberalism can reduce aggression via centralized defense. If you want to appeal to liberals, point out how libertarianism can produce more efficient private social services.
Especially, don't reply to a libertarian by pointing out how liberalism is more effective at implementing regulations and taxes. If they thought fighting "power [of] private actors" and providing "public infrastructure" justified these means they wouldn't be libertarians in the first place.
Libertarians like to ignore the power private actors can hold in absence of regulation.
Libertarians care about aggression more than "power". If you believe that aggression is justified to combat non-aggressive power then the only conclusion you can draw is that you are not a libertarian. Limiting "power" is not one of the goals of libertarianism, ergo failing to do so is not a defect.
Libertarians like to forget to spend on the needed public infrastructure.
Libertarianism has absolutely nothing against spending on infrastructure for public use. However, once again, if you believe that aggression is justified to raise the funds then you are obviously not a libertarian. For libertarians, fighting aggression holds a higher priority than providing public goods. If it's possible to do both, great. If not, aggression is still not an option. This is not a shortcoming, but rather the whole point.
The inability to do which proves nothing other than the person in question can't think of such a number.
Right, but I'm not looking for a proof. I realize that my argument isn't a proof as stated. That's fine. I'm just looking for a way to get the other person to accept that 0.999... and 1 are the same number. Assuming that they brought up (and accept) the Dedekind cut concept, trying and failing to come up with any number in between should do more to persuade them than the argument in the summary.
As for proof, if we start from the principle that every real number has at least one decimal representation (possibly infinite) which can be compared digit-wise with any other real number's decimal representation, then it follows that 0.999... must be greater than any number whose decimal representation starts with "0." followed by any sequence of digits containing one or more digits which is not "9". Any real number greater than zero and less than one which is not 0.999... must contain a digit which is not "9" (since otherwise they would be equal), so any such number must be less than 0.999..., and not between 0.999... and one. Q.E.D.
You can create a 1:1 mapping from the unordered set to the ordered set...
Are you sure? How would you do that without imposing some kind of order on the unordered set? Simply choosing balls at random and assigning sequential numbers wouldn't work—for any natural number n, there are a finite number of balls numbered less than or equal to n, and an infinite number which are greater. That means (for any value of n) the odds of choosing a ball numbered less than or equal to n is zero, i.e. such balls will never be chosen, even after infinite choices. So even after removing the infinite set of balls numbered greater than n, there must always be another infinite set of balls left numbered less than or equal to n (with n --> infinity).
Basically, the ordered case removes every ball in the set (1...+inf), while the unordered case splits the infinite input set into two infinite subsets (1...n and n...+inf with n --> +inf) and only removes the second subset. Moreover, repeating the process would just keep splitting the remaining infinite subset into smaller (but still infinite) pieces.
Math with pi:
Area of circle A (radius = 1 unit) = pi*r^2 = pi square units
Area of circle B (radius = 2 units) = pi*r^2 = 4*pi square units
Radio of the area of circle B to the area of circle A = (4*pi) / pi = 4
No approximations required.
0.999... is indeed a static and constant number. It's also a convergent series and a limit. Specifically, 0.999... is another way of writing the infinite series
$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{9}{10^{n}}$
or the limit
$\lim_{n\to\infty} \left[1 - \frac{1}{10^{n}}\right]$
You're right, of course, that the value of 0.999... doesn't change over time "as you add on more 9s", but the same is true for any other limit or series. What changes over time as the limit or series is evaluated is just an approximation of the real value.
The reverse is also true, you can be conservative and not... Oh how do they put it, 'view Somalia as a libertarian paradise.'
Perhaps I'm just taking this the wrong way, but (assuming you group libertarians in with the "conservatives") you should know that it generally isn't the libertarians themselves who "view Somalia as a libertarian paradise." This is a categorization usually made by their opponents.
Libertarians are against aggression in general, of which government happens to be the largest source in most of the "civilized" world—made yet worse by its false shroud of "legitimacy"—but rule-by-tribal-elders (as practiced in Somalia) and the hypothetical rule-by-criminal-gangs scenario are just as thoroughly opposed. Moreover, many of the problems in Somalia exist specifically as a result of external powers attempting to prop up a succession of unwanted central governments in the region.
What I disagree with is that we're talking about numbers at all. I think we're talking about *notation*.
You can talk about notation all you want, but when I say that 0.999... = 1 I am definitely referring to the equality of the numbers, not the way they're written. Notation only comes into play when it comes to accepting that the same number can be written multiple ways.
Take your argument. You make the assumption you that there can be no number between 0.999... and 1. That's fine, but you've pretty much *assumed* the conclusion by ruling out a Dedekind cut between "0.999.." and "1", which the other side (if they understood more math) would disagree with.
Perhaps it was badly worded, but that was not intended as an assumption, but rather a challenge to anyone who may disagree to come up with some number between 0.999... and 1. If such a "cut" is possible then an example shouldn't be difficult to find, but it quickly becomes rather obvious to anyone who tries it that (0.999... + x) > 1 for any real (and thus finite) value of x > 0.
The proof in the summary is *much* better...
I don't disagree—it's certainly more consise—but I do think it's much less persuasive to the non-initiate. Anyone who has a problem with 0.999... = 1, generally because they think 0.999... is "just an approximation", is going to have a problem with 10a - a = 9 where a = 0.999..., since that obviously isn't quite true for any finite approximation of a (10*0.9999999 - 0.9999999 = 9.999999 - 0.9999999 = 8.9999991 != 9).