There is no reason a car in space can't say 88mph on it's speedometer. The speedometer measures the rotational speed of the wheels relative to their axles, not the linear speed of the car relative to anything.
Did the university actually hold itself to its zero-tolerance cheating policy? Or did half the students in a given major just copy all their homework and projects from friends and/or past years, while getting just below average on the tests, enough to get a B or C average?
I'm proud of the work I did to get the degree I have, but I could have gotten away with doing about 10% as much work as I did.
Good point, but I think this study is more about perception and psychophysics than medicine. Human perception of pure tones and pure colors tends to follow some pretty strict "laws", so perception research can be a little more of a "hard" science than medicine, I think.
You're missing the point. Unless that whole post was just a set up for the punchline, what you're talking about is almost entirely unrelated to the issue in the article.
It's not about rounding, or counting, or any real-world interpretation of any math concepts. It's about the trouble that people have understanding that 0.999... is simply notation that refers to the limit of an infinite sequence of numbers.
No, 0.999... is NOT "approaching" 1. It is a single number, defined as the limit of an infinite sequence of numbers. The numbers in that sequence approach 1. None of the numbers in that sequence are equal to 1, but the limit of the sequence is 1. The notation "0.999...", misleading though it may be, does NOT refer to the sequence, or any element of the sequence, or to the process itself. It is simply defined as the limit of the sequence, which is one number, and that number is 1.
This is absolutely true, even with a TI. My TI-89 is still faster than any pc-based software that I've found, because A) it has so many math-specific buttons, B) I never lost the muscle memory for typing quickly on it. From watching others try to use TI-89s, I gather that I am one of very few people that can type comfortably on it.
Anyway, the TI-89 is significantly more powerful than a "scientific" calculator or a "graphing" calculator - it is pretty good at a variety of symbolic manipulation. This is useful for me even in day-to-day work, but it is also incredibly helpful for checking work on a test. I can guarantee you my undergraduate GPA benefited tangibly because I had that calculator.
Clearly the carriers have not been motivated by the market forces to offer this kind of service so far - how would the government change that by continuing to "let the market work the way it should" ???
Why can't websites use standardized privacy policies and TOSs ? Sure they would need to make small changes specific to their business or whatever, but you could make it modular, etc. Wouldn't it be nice to see something like this:
Our Privacy Policy:
*Standard Non-Financial, Non-Sensitive Privacy Policy
*<two application-specific paragraphs that anyone can read quickly>
Software and media does something vaguely similar with licenses right? So why would this not work?
"practical" and "arbitrary" not mutually exclusive. Virtually every unit of linear distance is arbitrary, though obviously practical in some context, because it was defined and used by someone.
You're talking about human-caused extinctions that arise from one-time, highly-influential accidents. Unfortunate as these may be, you are right, there is really nothing humans can reasonably do about them. But you can't deny that there are other cases where humans can put a stop to some aspect of their own behavior, when it is ongoing, and directly harmful to a species. I'm not saying we always can or should do that, but to say that humans can NEVER prevent an extinction that they would have been responsible for, is simply wrong. So no, we can't protect EVERY species, but yes, we absolutely can protect some.
Bicycling requires roads, which are very capital-intensive, probably moreso than lightweight steel monorails. Roads probably require more maintenance as well. Stop-and-go city traffic, even at 40mph, is frequently slower than 30mph on average, whereas a decent biker can go 25mph without too much effort. That's WITHOUT the benefit of steel-on-steel wheels, aerodynamic shell, and drafting. It looks to me like the Schweeb system can easily be cheaper and faster than both cars and bikes, for mid-heavy city transportation. I don't understand how you reached your conclusion.
To be honest, the fade effect would bother me if I ever used the Google homepage - this is why I have thought out an argument against it. But I never use the Google homepage, so I don't really care. It seems to me that leaving it on by default, but giving the option to disable, would be a decent solution.
I have the exact same problem, and I have trouble convincing people that I'm telling the truth about it sometimes. I didn't "grow up in a hi-fi world" though.
Slashdot Mirror
Well however many it was, it was less than the number that died fabricating and assembling 7 equivalent devices that some other person bought yearly.
There is no reason a car in space can't say 88mph on it's speedometer. The speedometer measures the rotational speed of the wheels relative to their axles, not the linear speed of the car relative to anything.
Why did it take them until now to figure out that people might want to search through the selection of thousands of movies?
Did the university actually hold itself to its zero-tolerance cheating policy? Or did half the students in a given major just copy all their homework and projects from friends and/or past years, while getting just below average on the tests, enough to get a B or C average?
I'm proud of the work I did to get the degree I have, but I could have gotten away with doing about 10% as much work as I did.
I think it's a "detail of many devils".
just saying...
Good point, but I think this study is more about perception and psychophysics than medicine. Human perception of pure tones and pure colors tends to follow some pretty strict "laws", so perception research can be a little more of a "hard" science than medicine, I think.
I have an infinite accuracy measuring device - it's called a limit.
Doesn't exist in the real world, you complain? That's ok! The problem doesn't ask about anything that exists in the real world.
You're missing the point. Unless that whole post was just a set up for the punchline, what you're talking about is almost entirely unrelated to the issue in the article.
It's not about rounding, or counting, or any real-world interpretation of any math concepts. It's about the trouble that people have understanding that 0.999... is simply notation that refers to the limit of an infinite sequence of numbers.
No, 0.999... is NOT "approaching" 1. It is a single number, defined as the limit of an infinite sequence of numbers. The numbers in that sequence approach 1. None of the numbers in that sequence are equal to 1, but the limit of the sequence is 1. The notation "0.999...", misleading though it may be, does NOT refer to the sequence, or any element of the sequence, or to the process itself. It is simply defined as the limit of the sequence, which is one number, and that number is 1.
This is absolutely true, even with a TI. My TI-89 is still faster than any pc-based software that I've found, because A) it has so many math-specific buttons, B) I never lost the muscle memory for typing quickly on it. From watching others try to use TI-89s, I gather that I am one of very few people that can type comfortably on it.
Anyway, the TI-89 is significantly more powerful than a "scientific" calculator or a "graphing" calculator - it is pretty good at a variety of symbolic manipulation. This is useful for me even in day-to-day work, but it is also incredibly helpful for checking work on a test. I can guarantee you my undergraduate GPA benefited tangibly because I had that calculator.
Clearly the carriers have not been motivated by the market forces to offer this kind of service so far - how would the government change that by continuing to "let the market work the way it should" ???
Why can't websites use standardized privacy policies and TOSs ? Sure they would need to make small changes specific to their business or whatever, but you could make it modular, etc. Wouldn't it be nice to see something like this:
Our Privacy Policy:
*Standard Non-Financial, Non-Sensitive Privacy Policy
*<two application-specific paragraphs that anyone can read quickly>
Software and media does something vaguely similar with licenses right? So why would this not work?
Your presence in the leech list for a security update indicates that you don't have it. That information is inherently public.
"practical" and "arbitrary" not mutually exclusive. Virtually every unit of linear distance is arbitrary, though obviously practical in some context, because it was defined and used by someone.
So the movie is now notable due to its lack of notability?
What do 8 people do with 50 wireless mics?
You're talking about human-caused extinctions that arise from one-time, highly-influential accidents. Unfortunate as these may be, you are right, there is really nothing humans can reasonably do about them. But you can't deny that there are other cases where humans can put a stop to some aspect of their own behavior, when it is ongoing, and directly harmful to a species. I'm not saying we always can or should do that, but to say that humans can NEVER prevent an extinction that they would have been responsible for, is simply wrong. So no, we can't protect EVERY species, but yes, we absolutely can protect some.
Bicycling requires roads, which are very capital-intensive, probably moreso than lightweight steel monorails. Roads probably require more maintenance as well. Stop-and-go city traffic, even at 40mph, is frequently slower than 30mph on average, whereas a decent biker can go 25mph without too much effort. That's WITHOUT the benefit of steel-on-steel wheels, aerodynamic shell, and drafting. It looks to me like the Schweeb system can easily be cheaper and faster than both cars and bikes, for mid-heavy city transportation. I don't understand how you reached your conclusion.
I'm no expert, but I think a majority of the $300000 is for the software.
Why don't you read the article you linked? It "is used to calculate the nth digit of in base 2". This is what GP and GGP both said.
And, by "some", I meant "more than none, and less than all". I assume this is what most other people mean when they use the word.
To be honest, the fade effect would bother me if I ever used the Google homepage - this is why I have thought out an argument against it. But I never use the Google homepage, so I don't really care. It seems to me that leaving it on by default, but giving the option to disable, would be a decent solution.
But... that's still more than zero..? So, whatever your reaction to my original point, that point still stands.
I have the exact same problem, and I have trouble convincing people that I'm telling the truth about it sometimes. I didn't "grow up in a hi-fi world" though.
I pay $480 every year for my phone's service plan, which is relatively cheap. $500 one time is very cheap, by my standard.