L'Hopital's rule allows one to evaluate x*log(x) as real x approaches zero from the positive side. The limit turns out to be zero even with slight modification of each term, (eg, replacing the product with (ax)*log(bx) still leaves the limit as zero). That's very different from the 0/0 case which evaluates to 1 for x/x, but which can evaluate to other numbers easily with the same slight modification ( (ax)/(bx) goes to a/b).
Your attempts at trying to attach the math to reality always make me smile. And your believe that the human words mean the same thing in math - that's just hilarious.
When a mathematical pattern occurs, be it in reality or in language, then the consequences of that pattern occur whether or not we choose to recognize it.
Have you seen how quickly and bloodlessly Occupy Wall Street was defeated and destroyed as soon as the One Percenters required it?
That's the quote since you asked for it.
Your claim that there's some kind of collaboration between the Dems and OWS does.
It's obvious. For example, we have Democrat politicians stating support for the OWS in the beginning, for example, President Obama and former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
And as I noted before, the crackdown on the OWS didn't happen until they became political liabilities for the Democrats. The moment polls showed substantial negative public opinion on the protests, they were out of there.
How about evaluating 0/(0*0) versus (0/0)/0? Assuming 0/0=1 gives you inconsistent outcomes unless you're willing to sacrifice associativity of multiplication and division.
Asking what is X divided by zero is no different than asking what is Y plus red, or what is Z times pineapple.
Actually these do make more sense. After all, energy is terms of dimensional units (such as kg m^2/s^2) which are qualitatively no different than red or pineapple. They just have far broader application in the real world. And Z times pineapple is a thing you can do. Y plus red may or may not make sense in this regard (for example, if Y is a multiple of red to begin with).
Mathematicians don't know which rule has precedence for 0/0
No, mathematicians known that there is no consistent number which would be an answer for 0/0. For example, take any number r and consider the fraction (rx)/x. For x not zero, it evaluates to r. Set x to zero and there's an argument that 0/0 should be r. But r wasn't special so you have an arbitrary argument with no special value of r indicated as the natural value of 0/0.
Similarly, if you consider the fraction x/(x^2), you get an argument that 0/0 should be infinite (plus or negative depending on whether you approach zero from the positive side or negative). In other words, 0/0 is indeterminate with the value, if any, depending on how you approach 0/0.
Uninhabitable. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I don't recall caring. You asked for the "rent" of the "uninhabitable" land. It can always be used for other uses, if habitation continues to be deemed undesirable.
I don't give one shit about about the longevity of the protests.
I do. Because on/off protest is a sign of protests controlled by an outside source. It's also worth noting the off switch was hit the moment polls starting showing the US public getting annoyed by the protests.
The fallacy that public choice economics took on was the fallacy that government is working entirely for the benefit of the citizen; and this was reflected by showing that in any [episode] in the programme, in Yes Minister, we showed that almost everything that the government has to decide is a conflict between two lots of private interest â" that of the politicians and that of the civil servants trying to advance their own careers and improve their own lives. And that's why public choice economics, which explains why all this was going on, was at the root of almost every episode of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister.
Note that this quote doesn't support your assertion that the series was right wing propaganda.
How do you keep people from eavesdropping on your initial signal from Earth? If people keep hearing the strong signal from Earth a couple seconds before it returns from the Moon, then the gig is up.
If you popped one next to an asteroid, the xrays would heat and vaporize the first few mm worth of material on the surface of the asteroid facing, giving a soft shove in the opposite direction.
I'd say tens of meters, not millimeters. X-rays penetrate quite well and the upper layers of your asteroid would have absorbed almost half the energy of a nearby detonation.
you could slightly juice this up with spraying the asteroid with some high- H material such as oil or wrapping it in saran wrap. I'm not kidding either.
You do realize that OWS was a worldwide movement, right?
No, I don't realize that and you don't either. But I'll point that some Democrat constituents have international reach such as a few NGOs and some money men.
But let's pretend for a second that the OWS protests were limited to the US. You're saying that many, if not most, OWS protesters didn't show up to protest the trashing of the world economy by financial corporations... they just showed up to engage in an impromptu pep rally in support of the Democrat party. Then when the Democrats decided the protesters were no longer convenient, they unleashed local police to clear the streets.
Nuclear weapons tend to be more forgiving of the delivery system than a howitzer shell. And we do have the rocketry thing working pretty well. I think delivery system, fire control, software, etc will just not be that hard.
And one can always blow up a few asteroids to see if nukes work.
It's worth noting here that the very line I quote is strong evidence for my claim that the OWS was a lightweight movement. One doesn't easily get rid of a protest movement, unless there wasn't much to the protest movement in the first place!
Are you trolling or do you actually believe the OWS movement was controlled by the Democrats?
No, but I believe they became as big as they were due to the Democrat Party's political needs of the moment.
First of all, the Democrats aren't organized (much less influential) enough to pull off such a protest. Second, the Dems are just as owned by Wall Street as the Republicans.
Sure, they aren't, but many of their constituents are. Makes you wonder who really "owns" either party.
Have you seen how quickly and bloodlessly Occupy Wall Street was defeated and destroyed as soon as the One Percenters required it?
I think it has more to do with the vapidity of the movement. I think the only reason the protests were as large as they were was because the Democrat Party wanted widespread protests for political advantage. When the OWS was no longer politically convenient, then suddenly the police remembered that there were laws which needed enforcing.
Bad example. A nuclear chain reaction is very different from an RTG. Among other things, it has a lower limit to the size of the reactor since neutrons escape readily from a reactor that is too small. While an RTG can scale to very small size due to most of the decay products being charged particles and easily intercepted by a small amount of mass.
So you're saying we should multiply the total fleet of nuclear plants (or another energy equivalent) by 2.5x nationally to provide water for California?
Yes. And you are in turn saying that this is possible, since 2.5x times current levels of power production is not impossible to achieve, just merely, impractically expensive.
mmm...you're the one claiming that "[it] requires extraordinary intervention, such as killing you." in order for the government to get people to modify their behavior.
No. This is not what I mean! I mean that it takes extraordinary intervention in order to prevent people from pursuing their self interest. There is a vast chasm here between influencing peoples' decisions and taking away their ability to make decisions based on self interest.
For example, it might be in my self interest to jaywalk in order to save a few seconds while crossing a street. A $20 fine for jaywalking may change the incentives enough so that I don't jaywalk. But that didn't eliminate my self interest, it just changed the payouts of the choices enough that it was no longer in my self interest to jaywalk.
In order to dominate my decision processes enough that I can't make even the slightest decision based on self interest would require a level of intervention that isn't technologically possible right now.
Slashdot Mirror
Same goes for things like 0*log(0).
L'Hopital's rule allows one to evaluate x*log(x) as real x approaches zero from the positive side. The limit turns out to be zero even with slight modification of each term, (eg, replacing the product with (ax)*log(bx) still leaves the limit as zero). That's very different from the 0/0 case which evaluates to 1 for x/x, but which can evaluate to other numbers easily with the same slight modification ( (ax)/(bx) goes to a/b).
Your attempts at trying to attach the math to reality always make me smile. And your believe that the human words mean the same thing in math - that's just hilarious.
When a mathematical pattern occurs, be it in reality or in language, then the consequences of that pattern occur whether or not we choose to recognize it.
Have you seen how quickly and bloodlessly Occupy Wall Street was defeated and destroyed as soon as the One Percenters required it?
That's the quote since you asked for it.
Your claim that there's some kind of collaboration between the Dems and OWS does.
It's obvious. For example, we have Democrat politicians stating support for the OWS in the beginning, for example, President Obama and former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
And as I noted before, the crackdown on the OWS didn't happen until they became political liabilities for the Democrats. The moment polls showed substantial negative public opinion on the protests, they were out of there.
How about evaluating 0/(0*0) versus (0/0)/0? Assuming 0/0=1 gives you inconsistent outcomes unless you're willing to sacrifice associativity of multiplication and division.
Asking what is X divided by zero is no different than asking what is Y plus red, or what is Z times pineapple.
Actually these do make more sense. After all, energy is terms of dimensional units (such as kg m^2/s^2) which are qualitatively no different than red or pineapple. They just have far broader application in the real world. And Z times pineapple is a thing you can do. Y plus red may or may not make sense in this regard (for example, if Y is a multiple of red to begin with).
Mathematicians don't know which rule has precedence for 0/0
No, mathematicians known that there is no consistent number which would be an answer for 0/0. For example, take any number r and consider the fraction (rx)/x. For x not zero, it evaluates to r. Set x to zero and there's an argument that 0/0 should be r. But r wasn't special so you have an arbitrary argument with no special value of r indicated as the natural value of 0/0.
Similarly, if you consider the fraction x/(x^2), you get an argument that 0/0 should be infinite (plus or negative depending on whether you approach zero from the positive side or negative). In other words, 0/0 is indeterminate with the value, if any, depending on how you approach 0/0.
That's odd, because in your first reply you denied that the protests were being controlled:
By the Democrat Party directly. Which is a far weaker claim than claiming it wasn't controlled by anyone at all.
Saying that it was polling data that triggered the Democrats to order the police to clear the streets doesn't really strengthen your argument.
I obviously disagree. What's the basis for your claim?
As long as it's uses don't require human involvement.
Don't require humans living there is vastly different than humans working there.
And it's Japan. Robots building and operating a nuclear facility is not that big a stretch.
Of course! ROT13! I should have thought of that.
Uninhabitable. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I don't recall caring. You asked for the "rent" of the "uninhabitable" land. It can always be used for other uses, if habitation continues to be deemed undesirable.
I don't give one shit about about the longevity of the protests.
I do. Because on/off protest is a sign of protests controlled by an outside source. It's also worth noting the off switch was hit the moment polls starting showing the US public getting annoyed by the protests.
This view has been supported by Jay himself:
The fallacy that public choice economics took on was the fallacy that government is working entirely for the benefit of the citizen; and this was reflected by showing that in any [episode] in the programme, in Yes Minister, we showed that almost everything that the government has to decide is a conflict between two lots of private interest â" that of the politicians and that of the civil servants trying to advance their own careers and improve their own lives. And that's why public choice economics, which explains why all this was going on, was at the root of almost every episode of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister.
Note that this quote doesn't support your assertion that the series was right wing propaganda.
How do you keep people from eavesdropping on your initial signal from Earth? If people keep hearing the strong signal from Earth a couple seconds before it returns from the Moon, then the gig is up.
I think it bears repeating. The protests are over. Why did that happen when the causes didn't go away?
If you popped one next to an asteroid, the xrays would heat and vaporize the first few mm worth of material on the surface of the asteroid facing, giving a soft shove in the opposite direction.
I'd say tens of meters, not millimeters. X-rays penetrate quite well and the upper layers of your asteroid would have absorbed almost half the energy of a nearby detonation.
you could slightly juice this up with spraying the asteroid with some high- H material such as oil or wrapping it in saran wrap. I'm not kidding either.
You need density not "high-H" to stop x rays.
You do realize that OWS was a worldwide movement, right?
No, I don't realize that and you don't either. But I'll point that some Democrat constituents have international reach such as a few NGOs and some money men.
But let's pretend for a second that the OWS protests were limited to the US. You're saying that many, if not most, OWS protesters didn't show up to protest the trashing of the world economy by financial corporations... they just showed up to engage in an impromptu pep rally in support of the Democrat party. Then when the Democrats decided the protesters were no longer convenient, they unleashed local police to clear the streets.
Which is what happened. Where's OWS now?
Nuclear weapons tend to be more forgiving of the delivery system than a howitzer shell. And we do have the rocketry thing working pretty well. I think delivery system, fire control, software, etc will just not be that hard.
And one can always blow up a few asteroids to see if nukes work.
It's worth noting here that the very line I quote is strong evidence for my claim that the OWS was a lightweight movement. One doesn't easily get rid of a protest movement, unless there wasn't much to the protest movement in the first place!
Are you trolling or do you actually believe the OWS movement was controlled by the Democrats?
No, but I believe they became as big as they were due to the Democrat Party's political needs of the moment.
First of all, the Democrats aren't organized (much less influential) enough to pull off such a protest. Second, the Dems are just as owned by Wall Street as the Republicans.
Sure, they aren't, but many of their constituents are. Makes you wonder who really "owns" either party.
Have you seen how quickly and bloodlessly Occupy Wall Street was defeated and destroyed as soon as the One Percenters required it?
I think it has more to do with the vapidity of the movement. I think the only reason the protests were as large as they were was because the Democrat Party wanted widespread protests for political advantage. When the OWS was no longer politically convenient, then suddenly the police remembered that there were laws which needed enforcing.
Bad example. A nuclear chain reaction is very different from an RTG. Among other things, it has a lower limit to the size of the reactor since neutrons escape readily from a reactor that is too small. While an RTG can scale to very small size due to most of the decay products being charged particles and easily intercepted by a small amount of mass.
Please calculate the rent of that uninhabitable land in Japan until it is habitable again.
They can always put nuclear plants on that land.
they are not installed in a single day by Joe the Plumber
That's what the unicorn plumbers are for. Duh!
So you're saying we should multiply the total fleet of nuclear plants (or another energy equivalent) by 2.5x nationally to provide water for California?
Yes. And you are in turn saying that this is possible, since 2.5x times current levels of power production is not impossible to achieve, just merely, impractically expensive.
mmm...you're the one claiming that "[it] requires extraordinary intervention, such as killing you." in order for the government to get people to modify their behavior.
No. This is not what I mean! I mean that it takes extraordinary intervention in order to prevent people from pursuing their self interest. There is a vast chasm here between influencing peoples' decisions and taking away their ability to make decisions based on self interest.
For example, it might be in my self interest to jaywalk in order to save a few seconds while crossing a street. A $20 fine for jaywalking may change the incentives enough so that I don't jaywalk. But that didn't eliminate my self interest, it just changed the payouts of the choices enough that it was no longer in my self interest to jaywalk.
In order to dominate my decision processes enough that I can't make even the slightest decision based on self interest would require a level of intervention that isn't technologically possible right now.