Ah, that's different. The last one I saw had said "FEMALE" before it had been doctored. (Maybe it was a Republican ploy? I don't know.)
This one was clearly made using a computer, and not a typewriter. (examine the font; also, they didn't have Laser printers in 1961.) It doesn't mean that he wasn't born in Hawaii, but it isn't the original certification of live birth. That's not a big deal. Many people get replacement birth certificates. What I think people ought to have concentrated on are the registrar's records.
I think both sides of this topic are generally off base.
I believe GP was a knee jerk reaction to this: (emphasis mine)
My biggest complaint about Sarah and all the other "conservatives" is that they seem constitutionally incapable of recognizing their own hypocrisy...
ArcherB responded with something touted as hypocrisy of a liberal.
(1) A citation would indeed be in order. (2) I don't have any quotes on hand from Pelosi about government waste, but I'm sure something could be found. (3) Are you going to call excessive, expensive booze "necessary and proper"? If our politicians want alcohol, let them pay for it themselves. It's a relatively small thing compared to other abuses, but it still amounts to fraud (essentially). (4) Oh he made a point, it just wasn't very relevant.
This must be news on Slashdot. If it was for a predominant democrat. it would be less newsworthy. As probably just some crazy propaganda from Fox News.
If she was a democrat, it would be considered less newsworthy. That is both true and unreasonable.
It doesn't change the fact that Palin is a terrible politician. (I lean towards inept, as opposed to corrupt.) It doesn't change the fact that there are people out there willing to cover for her when they should be looking for proverbial ammo.
I don't, and I'm registered with them. They're just generally better than the other bad choices out there.
... and "don't afraid of anything"...
???
... but the Teabagger Base (use your fundament, baby) is odious, despicable, and one misfired suicide bomber from being American Taliban.
You've bought the media rhetoric. "The tea party" often refers to "The Tea Party Express", a minor offshoot of the larger movement, and one that has been annexed as an extension to the Republican party. Most of the "hate" that you see is either painstakingly sought out by the media, or fabricated by allies to the Democratic Party.
The tea party movement is nothing more than a loose coalition of groups that believe in lower taxes and cutting government waste. In other words, people fed up with politicians (mostly Republicans, in this case) never, ever delivering on campaign promises. I think most voters can empathize with that.
Oh, and any rally will bring out the loonies. They always do. You'll see it again among all parties when the presidential election comes full swing. (Well, you might or might not see it in the media. That will depend on the popular narrative at the time.)
There are two kinds of people in the Palin camp who scare me. (1) The people who "fawn" over her. There are people like this in every camp, and they really need to wake up. (She does have more than her fair share, though...) (2) The people who rally behind her because they believe it would be best to have a female Republican president before Hilary gets there. They rarely say this out loud, of course.
The novelty vote (first black, first woman, etc) is destructive, but seems to be a driving force in politics right now. Personally, I want the first woman president to deserve it and serve capably and honestly. (and fiscally responsibly...)
I'm not doubting you, but short of personal information of citizens (which shouldn't be in any emails anyway) could you give an example of something "sensitive" that the governor of Alaska might be "privy" to?
Oh, easy. Much of the oil infrastructure up there could be tempting to terrorists. There may easily be other security and/or terrorism issues local to Alaska that the governor would be privy to. (Ports, gubernatorial security procedures, etc.) Use your imagination.
And if the governor of a state is so foolish as to put such information in an email, wouldn't you want to at least know that she had done so?
Not necessarily. Let's say she had an email discussion between herself and someone in charge of a sensitive matter. The email may never have left government computers at all. She could easily have responded with sensitive information that had been sent to her by the same correspondent.
I say, turn the whole thing over to some journalists at the Alaskan Sentinal or something and let them redact anything "sensitive".
Oh, right. Rely on the media to self-censor. We see how well that worked for Wikileaks. (Admittedly, they did some.)
Of course, we are talking about Alaska and judging by the debatable competence of the governor in question, one could speculate about the abilities at all levels of the state government.
Oh, common. There are elected officials every bit as inept throughout the country. There just aren't many in the limelight.
I wrote "conservative" not "libertarian". Big difference--the former approves of strong government control over the people.
Absolutely not. The present Republican Party does to some extent (not as much as the Democrats). Conservative means "cautious or avoiding excess". By definition, a true conservative does not approve of "strong government control over the people".
Libertarian and Republican parties are two different branches of conservative thought. They are both conservative (theoretically).
Oh, get off your high horse. That's just the high brow version of school yard taunting.
Take for a moment that I'm wrong. I don't think that I am, but I'll concede the vague possibility. (I have been before.) Your words teach me nothing. They convince me of nothing. They provide no intellectual sustenance. They are a rebuke, but not a rebuttal.
Sorry, no. I'm not going to simply take your word for it. (Not that this is important or anything.)
Oh ye of little faith. Bear with me as I show you how.
Imagine an infinite series of pairs. Let's start with.9 and.1. This pair total 1. The next pair in the series is.99 and.01. It also totals 1. Following that is.999 and.001, and so forth. As the number of 9's increases, so too does the number of zeros. But there must always a 1 on the end. It is vital for the series to be correct. You can't just assume that it goes away as you approach infinity; it's part of the definition of the series. If you have infinite 9's, than it must be paired with [infinity-1] 0's and a 1, and together will total 1.
If a solitary 1 at the end of infinite 0's is impossible, then so too is an infinite number of 9's. They are opposite sides of the very same coin.
Another way to think about this: we're talking about the set of real numbers. This set is a continuum. In other words, between any two points lie an infinite number of other points. This must mean that some points are infinity close to each other. It's just the nature of the thing. 0.000...0001 is just such a number. It is infinitely close to 1, but not equal to it. There must be such a number, or there could be no continuum. The set of real numbers could not be.
A mathematician would surely say it's much more complicated than that, but you get the idea.
Your step 2 might be a neat trick. I can't tell because step 3 is so badly explained. Undoing the multiplication in step 1 would mean dividing by either 10, or 9.999... You cannot undo that by dividing by 9, because 9 isn't a term in that operation.
So, what exactly are you trying to do?
(I've seen nice looking proofs that 1==2. I think you're doing something odd, I just can't quite understand your operation.)
Sure. Think about 1 - 0.999... it gives you 0.000... = 0. You might worry about a 1 sitting out there in the "infiniteth" decimal place, but remember that you can never get there; the 1 never happens. Since 0.000... = 0 then 1 - 0.999... = 0 and 0.999... = 1. Nothing fancy.
Sure it does, it just takes an infinite number of 0's to get there. The two are indeed infinitely close. Now for the conundrum: 0.999... is an irrational number, not an integer. 1 is an integer. Both belong to R, but only 1 belongs to Z. There may be many applications for which they are functionally equal, but they simply cannot be equivalent.
You probably don't have a problem with the idea that 1/3 =.333...
I do, actually, on a deep philosophical level. (I'm usually pragmatic enough to let it slide.)
... so if there is nothing that you can add to the first term to turn it into the second, they must be the same.
That's a big if. Actually, there is something you can add to turn 0.999... into 1. I'll give you a hint, since they're infinitely close together, the term must be infinitely small...
Technically, they simply cannot be the same because 1 belongs to the group of integars, and 0.999... doesn't. "Seems pretty common sense, huh?"
A) Utilities (ex:fiber) is a natural local monopoly. Sometimes it makes more sense for local municipalities to control naturally occurring monopolies. In this case, it's not anti-competition, but pro-competition.
B) There is no "the Tea Party". There is a loose affiliation of many groups with vaguely similar goals, and there is the "Tea Party Express", an unofficial branch of the Republican party having nothing whatever to do with most so-called "teapartiers".
If it weren't for all of the drug wars, I'm sure the US would have invaded Mexico at some point to "spread democracy" over the corrupted Mexican government.
It'll never happen.
Actually, I think the mexican drug wars makes invading Mexico much more tempting, not less. It provides specific enemies that are easy to hate by both local and foreign standards (and provide legitimate threats to both).
Uh, yeah, whatever. Things like this NEVER revert. Even if the boss doesn't realize it, he's discussing a permanent change. That salary had better be darn good.
People are bound to disagree with me, but I'd say "mandatory". It has been mandated that non-compliance has consequences. The word is usually used as a strict synonym for compulsory, but that's overstepping.
In other words, you're not being compelled to comply, but consequences have been mandated. If you would say that you are being compelled, then you could not say that it is voluntary.
In a historical sense, alchemy is nothing more than very early chemistry which was given a bad name by rampant fraud. Even Isaac Newton dabbled in alchemy in his day, trying to make scientific discoveries. In that sense, alchemy is very, very real, it just goes by a different name.
Hmmm. I wonder... I bet Congress could get away with passing indefinite limited use on the basis that it would eventually be curtailed. (and therefore limited, we just wouldn't know limited to what...)
Infinite is a tricky thing, especially in the legal sense. Somebody needs to teach SCOTUS some calculus. (rather: mathematical limits and infinite as covered in calculus)
Interesting. It's not what I've read, but I haven't reviewed the actual case arguments. He well might have.
As I understand it, he argued that retroactive copyright extension was being used to circumvent the intent of the "limited times" language. I, on the other hand, am arguing that exclusivity is constitutionally subordinate to promoting progress. Any exclusivity must have a well reasoned basis to promote progress for the sciences and useful arts. Otherwise, congress has no such authority.
Some of my reply to this post is the same thing, phrased differently (and much harsher).
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, that's different. The last one I saw had said "FEMALE" before it had been doctored. (Maybe it was a Republican ploy? I don't know.)
This one was clearly made using a computer, and not a typewriter. (examine the font; also, they didn't have Laser printers in 1961.) It doesn't mean that he wasn't born in Hawaii, but it isn't the original certification of live birth. That's not a big deal. Many people get replacement birth certificates. What I think people ought to have concentrated on are the registrar's records.
I think both sides of this topic are generally off base.
My biggest complaint about Sarah and all the other "conservatives" is that they seem constitutionally incapable of recognizing their own hypocrisy...
ArcherB responded with something touted as hypocrisy of a liberal.
(1) A citation would indeed be in order. (2) I don't have any quotes on hand from Pelosi about government waste, but I'm sure something could be found. (3) Are you going to call excessive, expensive booze "necessary and proper"? If our politicians want alcohol, let them pay for it themselves. It's a relatively small thing compared to other abuses, but it still amounts to fraud (essentially). (4) Oh he made a point, it just wasn't very relevant.
This must be news on Slashdot. If it was for a predominant democrat. it would be less newsworthy. As probably just some crazy propaganda from Fox News.
If she was a democrat, it would be considered less newsworthy. That is both true and unreasonable.
It doesn't change the fact that Palin is a terrible politician. (I lean towards inept, as opposed to corrupt.) It doesn't change the fact that there are people out there willing to cover for her when they should be looking for proverbial ammo.
I think Republicans in general are cool...
I don't, and I'm registered with them. They're just generally better than the other bad choices out there.
... and "don't afraid of anything"...
???
... but the Teabagger Base (use your fundament, baby) is odious, despicable, and one misfired suicide bomber from being American Taliban.
You've bought the media rhetoric. "The tea party" often refers to "The Tea Party Express", a minor offshoot of the larger movement, and one that has been annexed as an extension to the Republican party. Most of the "hate" that you see is either painstakingly sought out by the media, or fabricated by allies to the Democratic Party.
The tea party movement is nothing more than a loose coalition of groups that believe in lower taxes and cutting government waste. In other words, people fed up with politicians (mostly Republicans, in this case) never, ever delivering on campaign promises. I think most voters can empathize with that.
Oh, and any rally will bring out the loonies. They always do. You'll see it again among all parties when the presidential election comes full swing. (Well, you might or might not see it in the media. That will depend on the popular narrative at the time.)
True, but for sane people they do usually have a basis in a persons upbringing, schooling, socializing, or other experiences.
The trick for all of us is to recognize where our own misplaced ideas are and where they came from. Not at all an easy task.
There are two kinds of people in the Palin camp who scare me. (1) The people who "fawn" over her. There are people like this in every camp, and they really need to wake up. (She does have more than her fair share, though...) (2) The people who rally behind her because they believe it would be best to have a female Republican president before Hilary gets there. They rarely say this out loud, of course.
The novelty vote (first black, first woman, etc) is destructive, but seems to be a driving force in politics right now. Personally, I want the first woman president to deserve it and serve capably and honestly. (and fiscally responsibly...)
I'm not doubting you, but short of personal information of citizens (which shouldn't be in any emails anyway) could you give an example of something "sensitive" that the governor of Alaska might be "privy" to?
Oh, easy. Much of the oil infrastructure up there could be tempting to terrorists. There may easily be other security and/or terrorism issues local to Alaska that the governor would be privy to. (Ports, gubernatorial security procedures, etc.) Use your imagination.
And if the governor of a state is so foolish as to put such information in an email, wouldn't you want to at least know that she had done so?
Not necessarily. Let's say she had an email discussion between herself and someone in charge of a sensitive matter. The email may never have left government computers at all. She could easily have responded with sensitive information that had been sent to her by the same correspondent.
I say, turn the whole thing over to some journalists at the Alaskan Sentinal or something and let them redact anything "sensitive".
Oh, right. Rely on the media to self-censor. We see how well that worked for Wikileaks. (Admittedly, they did some.)
Of course, we are talking about Alaska and judging by the debatable competence of the governor in question, one could speculate about the abilities at all levels of the state government.
Oh, common. There are elected officials every bit as inept throughout the country. There just aren't many in the limelight.
It depends on which prison and which security level. Many prisoners are permitted razors. Ponder that one.
I wrote "conservative" not "libertarian". Big difference--the former approves of strong government control over the people.
Absolutely not. The present Republican Party does to some extent (not as much as the Democrats). Conservative means "cautious or avoiding excess". By definition, a true conservative does not approve of "strong government control over the people".
Libertarian and Republican parties are two different branches of conservative thought. They are both conservative (theoretically).
Oh, get off your high horse. That's just the high brow version of school yard taunting.
Take for a moment that I'm wrong. I don't think that I am, but I'll concede the vague possibility. (I have been before.) Your words teach me nothing. They convince me of nothing. They provide no intellectual sustenance. They are a rebuke, but not a rebuttal.
Sorry, no. I'm not going to simply take your word for it. (Not that this is important or anything.)
Show it, or shut it.
Oh ye of little faith. Bear with me as I show you how.
Imagine an infinite series of pairs. Let's start with .9 and .1. This pair total 1. The next pair in the series is .99 and .01. It also totals 1. Following that is .999 and .001, and so forth. As the number of 9's increases, so too does the number of zeros. But there must always a 1 on the end. It is vital for the series to be correct. You can't just assume that it goes away as you approach infinity; it's part of the definition of the series. If you have infinite 9's, than it must be paired with [infinity-1] 0's and a 1, and together will total 1.
If a solitary 1 at the end of infinite 0's is impossible, then so too is an infinite number of 9's. They are opposite sides of the very same coin.
Another way to think about this: we're talking about the set of real numbers. This set is a continuum. In other words, between any two points lie an infinite number of other points. This must mean that some points are infinity close to each other. It's just the nature of the thing. 0.000...0001 is just such a number. It is infinitely close to 1, but not equal to it. There must be such a number, or there could be no continuum. The set of real numbers could not be.
A mathematician would surely say it's much more complicated than that, but you get the idea.
Your step 2 might be a neat trick. I can't tell because step 3 is so badly explained. Undoing the multiplication in step 1 would mean dividing by either 10, or 9.999... You cannot undo that by dividing by 9, because 9 isn't a term in that operation.
So, what exactly are you trying to do?
(I've seen nice looking proofs that 1==2. I think you're doing something odd, I just can't quite understand your operation.)
Sure. Think about 1 - 0.999... it gives you 0.000... = 0. You might worry about a 1 sitting out there in the "infiniteth" decimal place, but remember that you can never get there; the 1 never happens. Since 0.000... = 0 then 1 - 0.999... = 0 and 0.999... = 1. Nothing fancy.
Sure it does, it just takes an infinite number of 0's to get there. The two are indeed infinitely close. Now for the conundrum: 0.999... is an irrational number, not an integer. 1 is an integer. Both belong to R, but only 1 belongs to Z. There may be many applications for which they are functionally equal, but they simply cannot be equivalent.
I think the hole in your logic may be that 0.333... == 1/3. I think 0.333... may only be a very close numerical approximation of 1/3, ...
Ditto.
... but 1/3 cannot be expressed absolutely as a number (even assuming infinite 3s).
It can be done, actually. It just cannot be done in base 10! You need to use a base that's a multiple of the prime number 3. ("trinary"?)
You probably don't have a problem with the idea that 1/3 = .333...
I do, actually, on a deep philosophical level. (I'm usually pragmatic enough to let it slide.)
... so if there is nothing that you can add to the first term to turn it into the second, they must be the same.
That's a big if. Actually, there is something you can add to turn 0.999... into 1. I'll give you a hint, since they're infinitely close together, the term must be infinitely small...
Technically, they simply cannot be the same because 1 belongs to the group of integars, and 0.999... doesn't. "Seems pretty common sense, huh?"
A) Utilities (ex:fiber) is a natural local monopoly. Sometimes it makes more sense for local municipalities to control naturally occurring monopolies. In this case, it's not anti-competition, but pro-competition.
B) There is no "the Tea Party". There is a loose affiliation of many groups with vaguely similar goals, and there is the "Tea Party Express", an unofficial branch of the Republican party having nothing whatever to do with most so-called "teapartiers".
If it weren't for all of the drug wars, I'm sure the US would have invaded Mexico at some point to "spread democracy" over the corrupted Mexican government.
It'll never happen.
Actually, I think the mexican drug wars makes invading Mexico much more tempting, not less. It provides specific enemies that are easy to hate by both local and foreign standards (and provide legitimate threats to both).
...until the company is profitable.
Uh, yeah, whatever. Things like this NEVER revert. Even if the boss doesn't realize it, he's discussing a permanent change. That salary had better be darn good.
People are bound to disagree with me, but I'd say "mandatory". It has been mandated that non-compliance has consequences. The word is usually used as a strict synonym for compulsory, but that's overstepping.
In other words, you're not being compelled to comply, but consequences have been mandated. If you would say that you are being compelled, then you could not say that it is voluntary.
I know you're just joking, but you might have stumbled onto something.
Most elephant speech is infrasonic. If such frequencies do make people nervous, then why aren't we more nervous around elephants? (Or are we?)
In a historical sense, alchemy is nothing more than very early chemistry which was given a bad name by rampant fraud. Even Isaac Newton dabbled in alchemy in his day, trying to make scientific discoveries. In that sense, alchemy is very, very real, it just goes by a different name.
Hmmm. I wonder... I bet Congress could get away with passing indefinite limited use on the basis that it would eventually be curtailed. (and therefore limited, we just wouldn't know limited to what...)
Infinite is a tricky thing, especially in the legal sense. Somebody needs to teach SCOTUS some calculus. (rather: mathematical limits and infinite as covered in calculus)
Interesting. It's not what I've read, but I haven't reviewed the actual case arguments. He well might have.
As I understand it, he argued that retroactive copyright extension was being used to circumvent the intent of the "limited times" language. I, on the other hand, am arguing that exclusivity is constitutionally subordinate to promoting progress. Any exclusivity must have a well reasoned basis to promote progress for the sciences and useful arts. Otherwise, congress has no such authority.
Some of my reply to this post is the same thing, phrased differently (and much harsher).