Really? You think the man who outmaneuvered a democratic revolution and rose to become a new Soviet leader from a rank of a KGB lieutenant colonel is a man who may have studied history? You think? You realize that his entire public persona is borrowed from Theodore Roosevelt, do you not?
From what I read, the Russian propaganda machine has the entire country convinced that Ukraine has inundated the entire world with its propaganda. The only country impervious to Ukraine's influence are Russia, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba. Yeah, Soviet Union lived by propaganda. They know what they are doing. Arguing with Russians is pointless at the moment. They don't actually know that there blanket censorship going on. They just shout down any voices of reason and spread FUD. The Soviet Propaganda is the genuine article. It's not some wanna-be propaganda. They actually ran a country based on it. Everything else, including every marketing campaign you've ever seen, is just a poor imitation.
Ok, maybe I should put it this way. You may be able to draw a formal distinction between "countably many" and "any number of", but you cannot draw that distinction logically; certainly not in the context of counting.
It's a misnomer. Finite at every point does not mean finite. Heck, y=x is would fit this criterion of "finite" if it did. Finite function means globally bounded.
makes no sense from a mathematical perspective. Does an infinite number of photons exist? Probably not (I am not a physicist). But the question is not that. The question is whether an infinite number of photons can fit into a space occupied by a laser. If that number has no bound, then infinitely many photons can fit there.
Infinity is not a number. It only exists as a formal notion to indicate lack of bound. One can talk about a "point at infinity", but to do so, one must adjoin to the set of numbers an object that is not numeric, but which only exists as a formal notion. Therefore, any set which contains a point at infinity is not a set of numbers. Yes, this is a "no true Scotsman" argument, but it has to be so because it is an argument about definitions.
I resist as incorrect every time I have a chance. It only became the British short form fairly recently. And, to anyone who uses the singular short form "math", it makes a suggestion that mathematical conclusions are open to being overturned the way scientific conclusions are. Since mathematical conclusions are final, there is only one math.
Each integer very much does have a finite limit - itself. Integers, as a whole, do not have a bound. Which is why unbounded implies infinite. Oh, and there is no such thing as "maths". There is math, there is mathematics, and there is people who understand neither and are proud of it. But math is singular. There is only one math. Oh, and "we"? *I* do not. And I have a PhD in math. So do go on lecturing me on trivialities.
I would argue that selling the products was also a stepping stone for him. He was more concerned with building great products. That was always the fundamental difference between Apple and MS. Microsoft was all about marketing and maybe delivering what they promised. Apple was about building the one true right thing and believing that it will sell because it will be better than anything else. This is why Google will eventually beat both the Apple philosophy and the MS philosophy. Google's mission is not sales or products. Google's mission is in enabling as many people in as many technology contexts as possible.
The person who got fired was an HR person -- not the employee who was contacted. Imagine if Apple HR started blindly calling up Google employees trying to lure them away and Google HR trying to lure Apple employees away. It's one thing when employees start looking around and reach out on their own or do so through recruiters. It's quite another for internal company recruiters trying to lure away employees from other companies. They had a deal to not destabilize each others' business. If that deal went so far as to not hire employees who wanted to leave on their own, then it went too far. But this particular email is not an example of such a case.
That's cute and all, but today's Russia commands higher power than Soviet Union did. Russia owns the largest oil company in the world. Russia has the power to completely dictate Europe's foreign policy because it supplies enough of Europe's natural gas to be able to grind European economy to a halt. It doesn't have the same consumer or production power as the civilized world. But that is not to say that it has no power. In addition to its ridiculously unproportional influence in Europe, it also commands the world's largest nuclear arsenal and can still manufacture long range bombers and mass-scale traditional arms.
So? Since when did ethnic make up give a justification for an invasion? Oh, wait, I know this one. Since Germany's Sudetenland, 1938. Yeah, yeah. Russia fought Nazi Germany... just to live to become a Nazi Russia.
maybe RT is propaganda, but most Russians will never know because they do not believe anything else
Well, at the moment they won't know because they are not allowed to hear anything else. Russia currently censors all media. They have even blocked the voice of america radio. They even went so far as to illegally take over the most popular Russian social network.
One of the Russian partners in the venture was a person named in the sanctions imposed after Russia's occupation of Ukranian peninsula of Crimea (yes, I am aware of Russia's historical claims on the peninsula, but they don't preempt the currently-recognized legal borders of both Russia and Ukraine).
How do you know? Most R&D doesn't show up as R&D cost anymore. It's accounted for as acquisition costs. Innovation is driven by reinvestment of acquisition capital into new ventures.
Giving something away at cost essentially guarantees never reducing costs. Cost reduction (in the capitalist model) happens by investing access capital (ie profit) in increased efficiency. Increased production efficiency is what reduces costs.
What do you mean "unelected"? Every time someone uses them, they do so by choice. They are elected every single day... unlike some other "elected" institutions.
Hussein was no more a threat to the US. than the Eskimos.
"How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing. It seems still more impossible that a quarrel which has already been settled in principle should be the subject of war." -- Neville Chamberlain, 1938.
Not having a capacity to wage effective war is not the same thing as not being on a war path. Capacity can be developed, especially if one has unlimited oil revenue (that Hussein would have had once the sanctions were lifted). As every other illiterate, Rachael Maddow, promotes the argument that the war was bad compared to status quo. But history never stands still. There is never a status quo. There is only a choice of possible futures. And anyone suggesting that they know what would have happened in the alternative is either a fool or a liar.
Because she is on TV, many assume that she must be given the benefit of the doubt and she must be assumed to be a liar. Having heard her speak though, I would disagree with all such assumptions. The shallowness of her analysis is so stark that she must be deemed a fool.
I saw a post last week by someone saying they wouldn't think that Putin was going overboard until Putin decided to invade the moon. Obviously the guy was trolling for Russia... little did he know.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like Putin has studied history.
Really? You think the man who outmaneuvered a democratic revolution and rose to become a new Soviet leader from a rank of a KGB lieutenant colonel is a man who may have studied history? You think? You realize that his entire public persona is borrowed from Theodore Roosevelt, do you not?
From what I read, the Russian propaganda machine has the entire country convinced that Ukraine has inundated the entire world with its propaganda. The only country impervious to Ukraine's influence are Russia, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba. Yeah, Soviet Union lived by propaganda. They know what they are doing. Arguing with Russians is pointless at the moment. They don't actually know that there blanket censorship going on. They just shout down any voices of reason and spread FUD. The Soviet Propaganda is the genuine article. It's not some wanna-be propaganda. They actually ran a country based on it. Everything else, including every marketing campaign you've ever seen, is just a poor imitation.
Terrorists eat apples! The apple farmers must be observed for possible terrorist connections.
Ok, maybe I should put it this way. You may be able to draw a formal distinction between "countably many" and "any number of", but you cannot draw that distinction logically; certainly not in the context of counting.
It's a misnomer. Finite at every point does not mean finite. Heck, y=x is would fit this criterion of "finite" if it did. Finite function means globally bounded.
unbounded but finite
makes no sense from a mathematical perspective. Does an infinite number of photons exist? Probably not (I am not a physicist). But the question is not that. The question is whether an infinite number of photons can fit into a space occupied by a laser. If that number has no bound, then infinitely many photons can fit there.
Infinity is not a number. It only exists as a formal notion to indicate lack of bound. One can talk about a "point at infinity", but to do so, one must adjoin to the set of numbers an object that is not numeric, but which only exists as a formal notion. Therefore, any set which contains a point at infinity is not a set of numbers. Yes, this is a "no true Scotsman" argument, but it has to be so because it is an argument about definitions.
I resist as incorrect every time I have a chance. It only became the British short form fairly recently. And, to anyone who uses the singular short form "math", it makes a suggestion that mathematical conclusions are open to being overturned the way scientific conclusions are. Since mathematical conclusions are final, there is only one math.
Each integer very much does have a finite limit - itself. Integers, as a whole, do not have a bound. Which is why unbounded implies infinite. Oh, and there is no such thing as "maths". There is math, there is mathematics, and there is people who understand neither and are proud of it. But math is singular. There is only one math. Oh, and "we"? *I* do not. And I have a PhD in math. So do go on lecturing me on trivialities.
Not having a finite limit means infinite. At least it does so in math. The summary got it right.
I would argue that selling the products was also a stepping stone for him. He was more concerned with building great products. That was always the fundamental difference between Apple and MS. Microsoft was all about marketing and maybe delivering what they promised. Apple was about building the one true right thing and believing that it will sell because it will be better than anything else. This is why Google will eventually beat both the Apple philosophy and the MS philosophy. Google's mission is not sales or products. Google's mission is in enabling as many people in as many technology contexts as possible.
The person who got fired was an HR person -- not the employee who was contacted. Imagine if Apple HR started blindly calling up Google employees trying to lure them away and Google HR trying to lure Apple employees away. It's one thing when employees start looking around and reach out on their own or do so through recruiters. It's quite another for internal company recruiters trying to lure away employees from other companies. They had a deal to not destabilize each others' business. If that deal went so far as to not hire employees who wanted to leave on their own, then it went too far. But this particular email is not an example of such a case.
It's a military super-power -- not just nuclear. Remember though that the Soviet Union was never an economic superpower, either.
Russia lost superpower status a long time ago.
That's cute and all, but today's Russia commands higher power than Soviet Union did. Russia owns the largest oil company in the world. Russia has the power to completely dictate Europe's foreign policy because it supplies enough of Europe's natural gas to be able to grind European economy to a halt. It doesn't have the same consumer or production power as the civilized world. But that is not to say that it has no power. In addition to its ridiculously unproportional influence in Europe, it also commands the world's largest nuclear arsenal and can still manufacture long range bombers and mass-scale traditional arms.
So? Since when did ethnic make up give a justification for an invasion? Oh, wait, I know this one. Since Germany's Sudetenland, 1938. Yeah, yeah. Russia fought Nazi Germany... just to live to become a Nazi Russia.
maybe RT is propaganda, but most Russians will never know because they do not believe anything else
Well, at the moment they won't know because they are not allowed to hear anything else. Russia currently censors all media. They have even blocked the voice of america radio. They even went so far as to illegally take over the most popular Russian social network.
One of the Russian partners in the venture was a person named in the sanctions imposed after Russia's occupation of Ukranian peninsula of Crimea (yes, I am aware of Russia's historical claims on the peninsula, but they don't preempt the currently-recognized legal borders of both Russia and Ukraine).
How do you know? Most R&D doesn't show up as R&D cost anymore. It's accounted for as acquisition costs. Innovation is driven by reinvestment of acquisition capital into new ventures.
Giving something away at cost essentially guarantees never reducing costs. Cost reduction (in the capitalist model) happens by investing access capital (ie profit) in increased efficiency. Increased production efficiency is what reduces costs.
Nah, it's a literal translation of "hello" from Russian.
What do you mean "unelected"? Every time someone uses them, they do so by choice. They are elected every single day... unlike some other "elected" institutions.
Hussein was no more a threat to the US. than the Eskimos.
"How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing. It seems still more impossible that a quarrel which has already been settled in principle should be the subject of war." -- Neville Chamberlain, 1938.
Not having a capacity to wage effective war is not the same thing as not being on a war path. Capacity can be developed, especially if one has unlimited oil revenue (that Hussein would have had once the sanctions were lifted). As every other illiterate, Rachael Maddow, promotes the argument that the war was bad compared to status quo. But history never stands still. There is never a status quo. There is only a choice of possible futures. And anyone suggesting that they know what would have happened in the alternative is either a fool or a liar.
Because she is on TV, many assume that she must be given the benefit of the doubt and she must be assumed to be a liar. Having heard her speak though, I would disagree with all such assumptions. The shallowness of her analysis is so stark that she must be deemed a fool.
Thank you for disagreeing with me. I couldn't ask for a better critic to prove my point.
I saw a post last week by someone saying they wouldn't think that Putin was going overboard until Putin decided to invade the moon. Obviously the guy was trolling for Russia... little did he know.
I'll keep my own judgement and you can keep yours.