People hire others to do things they don't want to.
They put trust in those people. THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. Welcome to the real world.
If this was software that you used yourself in your home, than it would be a different story, but it isn't (not as far as I could tell from the story).
Yes, that's EXACTLY what this is about: Software to let you edit in your own home! Please RTFA! It was only stated in the FIRST SENTENCE. And how did you manage to miss the title of the article: Group Supports Home-Viewer Editing of DVD Movies?
Er... The original poster's equstion is correct: O3 + H2 = H2O + O2
so (on average) one hydrogen molecule knocks out one ozone molecules, producing one water, and one oxygen, although almost certainly there are multiple paths involving hydroxide, hydrogen trioxide, hydrogen dioxide,...:)
You've entirely missed the point. No one, including the original poster or myself ever claimed that the percentage was EXACTLY MATHEMATICALLY IDENTICALLY zero. But the way to statistically represent something that is statistically IDENTICAL to zero is with a zero.
Did you entirely forget the context here?
The primary use of a percentage is to describe a portion in relation to the whole. That's all. It is in no way a requirement to be able to reconstitute that percentage to perfect accuracy, and in MOST casses is impossible. When you read a statistic in TV Guide, do you think that is a perfect representation down to the last datum? The things you're trying to read into this have no place whatsoever in this context.
You refused to answer my question to you as to how YOU would represent that persentage, probably because you admit that you'd have to represent it just as it was.;)
When I've pointed out your completely fallacious statements, not once have you acknowledged them, but instead went of into details which have no bearing in the original context.
You attempt to lecture me on the use of mathematics that I dare say I understand far better than yourself, but which have no bearing on the original statement being commented on.
My only reason for replying at all to your original post was because of the blatantly incorrect logic it contained in trying to draw an implication.
Thanks for the discussion though... kept my day from being too boring.:)
Sorry about the attitude. It's been a long and busy day here and it's frustrating when it takes so much work to get a point across. The only reason I used aleph0 was in the hopes of avoiding having to use the more messy notation using limits in the first place. So much for that idea.;)
So... when quoting a statistic, when is "arbitrarily close" not close enough? If you had a percentage that was arbitrarily close to zero, how would you represent that?;)
"You cannot rigorously express as a decimal number the percentage of primes that are even, because it is not a finite number. "
Well, I can, but apparently you aren't able to. Don't worry too much... a lot of people have hard time with math.;)
First off, the percentage of even primes certainly IS a finite number! Where in the world did you get the idea it wasn't. It's certainly less than 1 so it better be finite! If you think it's somehow incalculable or ill definied then you're much more confused than I originally thought. You seem to be getting confused between infinite quantities and infinite precision, and maybe that's why you've made the mathematical blunders you've been stating.
This isn't rocket science you know. These are all known and perfectly well-defined quantities we're dealing with.
What's stupid is that you even admitted that the this percentage is zero by your statement: If... you were to claim "the limit of 1/x as x->inf is 0", then I would agree with you". Well, just how else would you calculate the percentage of even primes?
As I said these things are obvious to those with a decent background in mathematics. Let me give you a quick lesson... The statements "1/aleph0" and "1/x as x->inf" are equivalent... aleph0 is NOT a number! To calculate a value for the expression "1/aleph0" you have to to treat it as a limit. Same goes for aleph1.;)
Again, this is VERY basic stuff as far as math goes, and you seem to be far too confused by it. I suggest going to your local library and getting a math book that deals with infinitesimals. And yes, I do have a degree in mathematics...and CS, and physics,...;)
Now I really hope you're not trying to say that you can't accurately express the percentage of even primes as a decimal....are you?
Let's see if you can understand this wording: "Express as a decimal number the percentage of prime numbers that are even." That's what we're taking about, right? Can you do that? I'm waiting...;)
Sorry that I assumed you might have some advanced math background. Anyone with such knowledge would know how to deal with a division involving aleph0 without whining "you can't do that".
To rephrase in anylitical math terms: What's the limit as x aproaches infinity of 1/x. Now express that as a decimal percent. Is that understandable for you?
In any case, my point is that your original statement: "It's incorrect to say that 0% of prime numbers are even, as that would imply no prime numbers are even" is absolutely incorrect. Don't try to create implications that do not exist.
"... as that would imply no prime numbers are even."
It's probably been said a million times before, but you are totally wrong!
Saying that 0% of prime numbers are even does NOT imply any such thing! Please learn what a percentage means. It DOES mean that the ratio of even primes to non-even primes is INFINITESIMALLY SMALL. (If you don't understand infinitesimally small, please take a basic calculus class.) Let me ask you this. How would you express one divided by aleph0? (aleph0 is the cardinality of all infinite discrete sets.)
There area only TWO ways they could be compliant with the GPL Licence while only releasing partial source:
If the proprietary code consists entirely of stand alone programs (doesn't sound likely).
If the proprietary code is calling LGPL libraries, but it seems clear that they are talking about the GNU licence and not the LGPL licence.
It is not legal to link proprietary code with GPL libraries and distribute!
If they are using the GPL software in conjunction with their proprietary software and not releasing the proprietary source under GPL, they are in direct violation of the GPL.
Even though they claim that the proprietary elements are not subject to the GPL, The GPL License does not entitle them to use GPL software in conjunction with it unless they're seperate stand alone programs.
If they are unwilling to abide by those licence requirements, then they are not legally entitled to use the GPL software and need to write their own code.
Yes, there are limits to how many items can be checked out at once which varies from library to library, but there are no fees for inter-library loans or holds. (There are fees for over-due items of course.)
I agree that we have many stupid laws here, but luckily the libraries are in general opposed to such laws and are generally working in the interest of patrons and the public in general. The media interests (MPAA, RIAA, etc.) seem active in trying to destroy this one bastion of intellectual freedom, but for now they are being held at bay.
The BURNING of coal puts much more radioactive material into the air than the mining. (Not to mention the other chemical contributions such as supher compounds that product acid rain).
I recently (couple of months ago) participated in a survey that asked questions about downloading music from the internet. It has questions about how much or how often I downloaded, etc. that sounds suspiciously like the info discussed here.
I get online to download free music samples and free midi files and additionally have my personal purchased CD collection converted to mp3/ogg for my convenience.
What was aggravating was that there was ABSOLUTELY NO WAY TO ANSWER THEIR QUESTIONS ACCURATELY! The survey presupposed that ANY downloading from the net was illegal download of copyrighted material! The way the survey was worded, it wasn't possible to get any accurate view of things. I wish I had a reference to link to, but I can't remember the site.
Has anyone else been a participant in such a survey?
Oops! Ok... I knew I should have looked up the comparison between surface radiation levels and orbital radiation levels.:)
While I couldn't find any info on mars surface radiation levels, orbital radiation is quite a bit higher in general. Dose rates aboard the ISS apparently are a hundred times average background radiation according to one website. I don't have any decent reference with me.
Offtopic I know, but... While 2.5x the radiation at LEO is a lot more than the average background here, it's debatable whether this is 'killer'. Radiation in ammounts roughly 5x background are known to be beneficial.
The effects of radiation are known to conflict with the linear-no-threshold hypothesis and are definitely non-linear. A study of roughly 60,000 Naval shipyard workers (half in the nulcear program and half not) showed that the nuclear shipyard workers (who received roughly 5x normal background) had death rates 24% lower. (That's 16 standard deviations!) The deaths due to cancer rate were 4 standard deviations lower. For the study's population size this is extremely significant because all other demographic factors were virtually identical except for the high levels of radiation.
Current thinking is that these levels of radiation actually stimulate the body's immune system. For further info, search google for "Nuclear Shipyard Worker" and "Radiation" or on "Radiation Hormesis". Here's a start
Do you have any idea what the ratio of the sun's mass is compared to jupiter? It's about 3500 to 1. I won't even bother to mention the ratio for geosynchronous comunications satellites. The effect you originally claimed is negligible and your claim that the orbit would get bigger and bigger is absurd... especially in the context of geosynchronous satelites.
In the future, remember: CONTEXT IS RELEVANT. Pay attention!
If the earth were to lose mass, the satellites would be moving too fast to stay in the same obit and would spiral out
Yes, but not if the satelite looses mass. The original question being debated was "Wouldn't the loss of mass for that planet eventually cause it's orbit to get bigger and bigger?"
Dude, you got ripped off.;) At my university surplus sales, those systems are $5.;)
I recently picked up an NEC multisync projector that does 2500x2000 pixels for $15 and it's AWESOME!!!;) Quake just needs to be played on a 12 foot diagonal screen with the stereo cranked.;)
Yes it would, actually. The planet it doesn't need a force acting on it to pull it away. The point is that there is less force acting on it to keep it close in.
But it doesn't NEED as much force to keep the object in it's current orbit either. In general, orbital distance is a function of the object's tangential velocity and is independant of the orbiting object's mass. (speaking for the cases when m1 << m2) This is similar to the reason that escape velocity is independant of mass.
You honestly didn't think that all those geostationary communications satelites have the same mass, do you?;)
Thanks for the clarification.
I was reading fast and thought you were objecting to the ability to differentiate signal sources instead of the silly unlimited bandwidth claims. Sorry.:)
His argument is that you can distinguish SEPERATE sources with proper receiving equipment. (see phased arrays, CDMA...).
Your argument is like saying "Broadcast two signals on the same frequency FROM THE SAME ANTENNA". In that case, it really wouldn't be two different signals, now would it?:)
Slashdot Mirror
so (on average) one hydrogen molecule knocks out one ozone molecules, producing one water, and one oxygen, although almost certainly there are multiple paths involving hydroxide, hydrogen trioxide, hydrogen dioxide, ... :)
Anyway, I think on the whole, we're in agreement on most of the math... just have to work on context applicability.
Have a nice day. :)
Did you entirely forget the context here?
The primary use of a percentage is to describe a portion in relation to the whole. That's all. It is in no way a requirement to be able to reconstitute that percentage to perfect accuracy, and in MOST casses is impossible. When you read a statistic in TV Guide, do you think that is a perfect representation down to the last datum? The things you're trying to read into this have no place whatsoever in this context.
You refused to answer my question to you as to how YOU would represent that persentage, probably because you admit that you'd have to represent it just as it was. ;)
When I've pointed out your completely fallacious statements, not once have you acknowledged them, but instead went of into details which have no bearing in the original context.
You attempt to lecture me on the use of mathematics that I dare say I understand far better than yourself, but which have no bearing on the original statement being commented on.
My only reason for replying at all to your original post was because of the blatantly incorrect logic it contained in trying to draw an implication.
Thanks for the discussion though... kept my day from being too boring. :)
So... when quoting a statistic, when is "arbitrarily close" not close enough? If you had a percentage that was arbitrarily close to zero, how would you represent that? ;)
Well, I can, but apparently you aren't able to. Don't worry too much... a lot of people have hard time with math. ;)
First off, the percentage of even primes certainly IS a finite number! Where in the world did you get the idea it wasn't. It's certainly less than 1 so it better be finite! If you think it's somehow incalculable or ill definied then you're much more confused than I originally thought. You seem to be getting confused between infinite quantities and infinite precision, and maybe that's why you've made the mathematical blunders you've been stating.
This isn't rocket science you know. These are all known and perfectly well-defined quantities we're dealing with. What's stupid is that you even admitted that the this percentage is zero by your statement: If ... you were to claim "the limit of 1/x as x->inf is 0", then I would agree with you". Well, just how else would you calculate the percentage of even primes?
As I said these things are obvious to those with a decent background in mathematics. Let me give you a quick lesson... The statements "1/aleph0" and "1/x as x->inf" are equivalent... aleph0 is NOT a number! To calculate a value for the expression "1/aleph0" you have to to treat it as a limit. Same goes for aleph1. ;)
Again, this is VERY basic stuff as far as math goes, and you seem to be far too confused by it. I suggest going to your local library and getting a math book that deals with infinitesimals. And yes, I do have a degree in mathematics ...and CS, and physics, ... ;)
Let's see if you can understand this wording: "Express as a decimal number the percentage of prime numbers that are even." That's what we're taking about, right? Can you do that? I'm waiting... ;)
Sorry that I assumed you might have some advanced math background. Anyone with such knowledge would know how to deal with a division involving aleph0 without whining "you can't do that".
To rephrase in anylitical math terms: What's the limit as x aproaches infinity of 1/x. Now express that as a decimal percent. Is that understandable for you?
In any case, my point is that your original statement: "It's incorrect to say that 0% of prime numbers are even, as that would imply no prime numbers are even" is absolutely incorrect. Don't try to create implications that do not exist.
It's probably been said a million times before, but you are totally wrong!
Saying that 0% of prime numbers are even does NOT imply any such thing! Please learn what a percentage means. It DOES mean that the ratio of even primes to non-even primes is INFINITESIMALLY SMALL. (If you don't understand infinitesimally small, please take a basic calculus class.) Let me ask you this. How would you express one divided by aleph0? (aleph0 is the cardinality of all infinite discrete sets.)
- If the proprietary code consists entirely of stand alone programs (doesn't sound likely).
- If the proprietary code is calling LGPL libraries, but it seems clear that they are talking about the GNU licence and not the LGPL licence.
It is not legal to link proprietary code with GPL libraries and distribute!If they are using the GPL software in conjunction with their proprietary software and not releasing the proprietary source under GPL, they are in direct violation of the GPL.
Even though they claim that the proprietary elements are not subject to the GPL, The GPL License does not entitle them to use GPL software in conjunction with it unless they're seperate stand alone programs.
If they are unwilling to abide by those licence requirements, then they are not legally entitled to use the GPL software and need to write their own code.
See the license page for more information.
Just as I've suspected... members of the RIAA are not human! ;)
Oh... maybe because google could actually DEFEND themselves in court?
I agree that we have many stupid laws here, but luckily the libraries are in general opposed to such laws and are generally working in the interest of patrons and the public in general. The media interests (MPAA, RIAA, etc.) seem active in trying to destroy this one bastion of intellectual freedom, but for now they are being held at bay.
In the UK, do they charge you to borrow library books as well?
Here in the USA, you can borrow CDs, DVDs, Videos and Software from the local library. They charge NOTHING. Just go in and ask for a library card.
Q. What's the last thing a redneck says before he dies?
A. "Hey everybody, watch this!" ;)
The BURNING of coal puts much more radioactive material into the air than the mining. (Not to mention the other chemical contributions such as supher compounds that product acid rain).
I get online to download free music samples and free midi files and additionally have my personal purchased CD collection converted to mp3/ogg for my convenience.
What was aggravating was that there was ABSOLUTELY NO WAY TO ANSWER THEIR QUESTIONS ACCURATELY! The survey presupposed that ANY downloading from the net was illegal download of copyrighted material! The way the survey was worded, it wasn't possible to get any accurate view of things. I wish I had a reference to link to, but I can't remember the site.
Has anyone else been a participant in such a survey?
While I couldn't find any info on mars surface radiation levels, orbital radiation is quite a bit higher in general. Dose rates aboard the ISS apparently are a hundred times average background radiation according to one website. I don't have any decent reference with me.
The effects of radiation are known to conflict with the linear-no-threshold hypothesis and are definitely non-linear. A study of roughly 60,000 Naval shipyard workers (half in the nulcear program and half not) showed that the nuclear shipyard workers (who received roughly 5x normal background) had death rates 24% lower. (That's 16 standard deviations!) The deaths due to cancer rate were 4 standard deviations lower. For the study's population size this is extremely significant because all other demographic factors were virtually identical except for the high levels of radiation.
Current thinking is that these levels of radiation actually stimulate the body's immune system. For further info, search google for "Nuclear Shipyard Worker" and "Radiation" or on "Radiation Hormesis". Here's a start
I know it's hard for you to admit when you're wrong, but we both know the context here.
I can see that splitting hairs is a hobby for you, but I EXPLICITLY qualified my statement with "(speaking for the cases when m1 << m2)" .
Do you have any idea what the ratio of the sun's mass is compared to jupiter? It's about 3500 to 1. I won't even bother to mention the ratio for geosynchronous comunications satellites. The effect you originally claimed is negligible and your claim that the orbit would get bigger and bigger is absurd... especially in the context of geosynchronous satelites.
In the future, remember: CONTEXT IS RELEVANT. Pay attention!
Yes, you're absolutely correct. :)
Yes, but not if the satelite looses mass. The original question being debated was "Wouldn't the loss of mass for that planet eventually cause it's orbit to get bigger and bigger?"
Dude, you got ripped off. ;) At my university surplus sales, those systems are $5. ;)
I recently picked up an NEC multisync projector that does 2500x2000 pixels for $15 and it's AWESOME!!! ;) Quake just needs to be played on a 12 foot diagonal screen with the stereo cranked. ;)
But it doesn't NEED as much force to keep the object in it's current orbit either. In general, orbital distance is a function of the object's tangential velocity and is independant of the orbiting object's mass. (speaking for the cases when m1 << m2) This is similar to the reason that escape velocity is independant of mass.
You honestly didn't think that all those geostationary communications satelites have the same mass, do you? ;)
Thanks for the clarification. I was reading fast and thought you were objecting to the ability to differentiate signal sources instead of the silly unlimited bandwidth claims. Sorry. :)
His argument is that you can distinguish SEPERATE sources with proper receiving equipment. (see phased arrays, CDMA ...).
Your argument is like saying "Broadcast two signals on the same frequency FROM THE SAME ANTENNA". In that case, it really wouldn't be two different signals, now would it? :)