Get in the way of what I'm doing on the web, and I'll certainly have a negative image of your company.
Exactly, I take that view with respect to most advertising. If I find that the advertisement is intrusive, annoying, or idiotic then I will actively avoid the company and product it is associated with.
I avoid all the ad's I can. There are certain telivision shows (read: The West Wing) that I watch religiously. But I never actually watch it when it's on. I tape it and then watch it later so I can fast foreward through the commercials.
Creators, currently, are not allowed to refuse people the right to cover his songs nor should they be. You do not get complete control over something that you're offering to the public. That is the point here. When you offer something up to the public part of that something becomes there's and you lose control. If you don't want to give that up then don't give it out, keep it to yourself and you can control it as much as you want.
That's not at all what he's saying. I think it should work somewhat analogously to how covers for songs work. There is a set price for a cover. Everyone pays the same price, you can't charge more for more popular songs or for companies and people you don't like and you can't deny anyone the right to cover a song. When someone wants to cover a song all they have to do is pay the fee and give credit to the original artist. I think that's the way music should work in all forms, not jjust with covers. If you want to sell music you have to give credit to the artists (you can't claim it's "your book") and you also have to pay a fair and most importantly a standard price to the author of the music.
That definition is too ambiguous. The teachings of JC require interpretation just like everything else in the bible. So should they follow your interpretation? The pope's interpretation? Their own interpretation?
I would say that if they were a member of the church then they were by definition Christians. To say someone isn't a Christian because you don't agree with the way they ran the church or lived their lives seems like a no true scotsman fallacy to me.
That statement is absurd. There is no way of defining who is and is not a Christian other then the personal beliefs of that person. If someone says they are a Christian then they are by definition a Christian.
I think you're supporting his point. What I think he's saying (and what I believe to be true) is not that the bible should be banned. I believe his point was that the logic used by people who would ban violent media isn't very logical. People often use "logical" arguments to back up their beliefs but never stop to consider the host of things they don't believe that are implied by those same "logical" arguments they just used.
Well, of course! But it's a pain in the ass calculating the *exact* values for COS and SIN, and Taylor Series approximations are time consuming. In practice, one can interpolate along tables (which is fast and easy), but these new tools also provide a fast method (relative to Taylor series approximations) for computing the same values without a table.
Knowone is talking about computing sine or taylor expansions or tables. You can get the exact same answer he is getting with paper and pencil using trig identities and it is every bit as fast as what he's doing.
Also, he's talking about algebra, it is certainly NOT closed under the rationals. In fact in his example he got an irrational answer. You are looking for an irrational quantity, if these operations were closed in the rationals then you wouldn't be able to get an answer at all.
As for graphics, this will not speed up anything. The form of the solutions are identical and this negates the possibility of using approximations to sine which can be useful in certain circumstances.
What people don't understand is this is just a simplification. All this guy has done is define the sine squared of an angle to be "spread" and work with that instead of the angle. But if you want to work just with sine squared then work just with sine squared, you don't need to redefine trig to do that.
First off, anything you can do with this you can also do with classical trigonometry. Any exact answer you can get using this, you can also get using trig.
Secondly, if a quantity is irrational then computing it a different way will not make it rational. You do not get only rational answers when you use this stuff, for the author to claim that you do is extrordinarily disengenuous. It's damn near a boldface lie.
Next, this will not extend easily into complex numbers. What the author has done is obfuscate the true nature of trigonometry in order to simplify the calculation of problems that were already easy (trig is not hard). But he does this at the expense of the theoretical underpinnings which make connections to other branches of math possible. This is a step backward in math to the early days of analytic geometry. This is nothing new.
Lastly, measurement is a physical act, taking a limit is a theoretical act. Measuring an angle certainly does not require limits. Now it does require limits to develop a rigorous theoretical definition of angle. But as an engineer when have you ever used a rigorous theoretical definition? Just pull out your protractor and be on your way. Leave the rigor to the mathematicians, it's what we do, we're good at it, you're not.
I think you have a deep misunderstanding of Godel. He did not show that proofs from axioms are useless at all. And he did not show that proofs are unproovable. I'm not even sure what you mean by that obviously condradictory statement.
Godel showed that a system of axioms cannot prove themselves consistent and that there will never be a system of axioms that can proove everything. That certainly does not invalidate the axiomatic method. Just the specific push to formalism that mathematicians such as Hilbert were advocating at the time.
The slippery slope can't be defended by logically valid arguments. The slipery slope is a tactic you use in an argument. You use that tactic to try and support some claim. Now that claim may or may not have logically valid arguments in support of it. But the slippery slope argument itself does not have logically valid arguments in favor of it because it is not logically valid.
I'd rather prevent it from happening than to fight against it once it's started. They that can give up Essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
I hope you realize that those two quotes are in direct contradiction.
The problem with the slippery slope argument is that you can apply it everywhere. And usually you can apply it in either direction. It carries no logical signifigance, it's only use is in attempts to jusitfy someones otherwise unjustifiable fears. Now I'm not saying that there are no justified fears. What I'm saying is that they can be justified by logically valid arguments, of which the slippery slope is not a member.
Again, a class in logic would be beneficial. The fallacy is that not everything goes all the way over the line. The fact that you can provide an example of something that did go over the line does not contradict that.
Also, kudo's for jumping right into the Nazi referance. That was quicker then most.
Over here in America we only have the red light cameras (that I know of), so it would be pretty expensive to install an entire system like that, but I guess there's proof that it can be made profitable so...
The only thing is I don't like the idea of there being a SQL database of intersections I've passed through. I'd be much more comfortable with a system that could catch speeders without keeping track of their travel routes.
The way you're setting things up you have to be able to rely on the fact that people are driving straight for a long distance with no stop lights. It's just too restrictive, you're not going to catch enough people to justify the cost of the system.
Slashdot Mirror
I never agreed to any social contract. Just because a company wants to throw advertising in my face does not mean that I'm obligated to let them.
Sounds about right...
Exactly, I take that view with respect to most advertising. If I find that the advertisement is intrusive, annoying, or idiotic then I will actively avoid the company and product it is associated with.
It may not work on most of us, but sadly it does work on most consumers. That's why companies spend so much on advertising, they see results from it.
I avoid all the ad's I can. There are certain telivision shows (read: The West Wing) that I watch religiously. But I never actually watch it when it's on. I tape it and then watch it later so I can fast foreward through the commercials.
But control over what? And for how long?
Creators, currently, are not allowed to refuse people the right to cover his songs nor should they be. You do not get complete control over something that you're offering to the public. That is the point here. When you offer something up to the public part of that something becomes there's and you lose control. If you don't want to give that up then don't give it out, keep it to yourself and you can control it as much as you want.
That's not at all what he's saying. I think it should work somewhat analogously to how covers for songs work. There is a set price for a cover. Everyone pays the same price, you can't charge more for more popular songs or for companies and people you don't like and you can't deny anyone the right to cover a song. When someone wants to cover a song all they have to do is pay the fee and give credit to the original artist. I think that's the way music should work in all forms, not jjust with covers. If you want to sell music you have to give credit to the artists (you can't claim it's "your book") and you also have to pay a fair and most importantly a standard price to the author of the music.
That definition is too ambiguous. The teachings of JC require interpretation just like everything else in the bible. So should they follow your interpretation? The pope's interpretation? Their own interpretation?
I would say that if they were a member of the church then they were by definition Christians. To say someone isn't a Christian because you don't agree with the way they ran the church or lived their lives seems like a no true scotsman fallacy to me.
That statement is absurd. There is no way of defining who is and is not a Christian other then the personal beliefs of that person. If someone says they are a Christian then they are by definition a Christian.
I think you're supporting his point. What I think he's saying (and what I believe to be true) is not that the bible should be banned. I believe his point was that the logic used by people who would ban violent media isn't very logical. People often use "logical" arguments to back up their beliefs but never stop to consider the host of things they don't believe that are implied by those same "logical" arguments they just used.
p.s. Sorry, it has nothing to do with slashdot, it has to do with the fact that I'm a math major. I can't resist taking a shot at engineers :)
Knowone is talking about computing sine or taylor expansions or tables. You can get the exact same answer he is getting with paper and pencil using trig identities and it is every bit as fast as what he's doing.
Also, he's talking about algebra, it is certainly NOT closed under the rationals. In fact in his example he got an irrational answer. You are looking for an irrational quantity, if these operations were closed in the rationals then you wouldn't be able to get an answer at all.
As for graphics, this will not speed up anything. The form of the solutions are identical and this negates the possibility of using approximations to sine which can be useful in certain circumstances.
What people don't understand is this is just a simplification. All this guy has done is define the sine squared of an angle to be "spread" and work with that instead of the angle. But if you want to work just with sine squared then work just with sine squared, you don't need to redefine trig to do that.
Secondly, if a quantity is irrational then computing it a different way will not make it rational. You do not get only rational answers when you use this stuff, for the author to claim that you do is extrordinarily disengenuous. It's damn near a boldface lie.
Next, this will not extend easily into complex numbers. What the author has done is obfuscate the true nature of trigonometry in order to simplify the calculation of problems that were already easy (trig is not hard). But he does this at the expense of the theoretical underpinnings which make connections to other branches of math possible. This is a step backward in math to the early days of analytic geometry. This is nothing new.
Lastly, measurement is a physical act, taking a limit is a theoretical act. Measuring an angle certainly does not require limits. Now it does require limits to develop a rigorous theoretical definition of angle. But as an engineer when have you ever used a rigorous theoretical definition? Just pull out your protractor and be on your way. Leave the rigor to the mathematicians, it's what we do, we're good at it, you're not.
Godel showed that a system of axioms cannot prove themselves consistent and that there will never be a system of axioms that can proove everything. That certainly does not invalidate the axiomatic method. Just the specific push to formalism that mathematicians such as Hilbert were advocating at the time.
Chemical reaction vs. Nuclear reaction... Care to guess which one wins?
False logic can often arrive at a correct conclusion; that doesn't make the logic any more or less false.
The slippery slope can't be defended by logically valid arguments. The slipery slope is a tactic you use in an argument. You use that tactic to try and support some claim. Now that claim may or may not have logically valid arguments in support of it. But the slippery slope argument itself does not have logically valid arguments in favor of it because it is not logically valid.
They that can give up Essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
I hope you realize that those two quotes are in direct contradiction.
The problem with the slippery slope argument is that you can apply it everywhere. And usually you can apply it in either direction. It carries no logical signifigance, it's only use is in attempts to jusitfy someones otherwise unjustifiable fears. Now I'm not saying that there are no justified fears. What I'm saying is that they can be justified by logically valid arguments, of which the slippery slope is not a member.
Also, kudo's for jumping right into the Nazi referance. That was quicker then most.
Please go take a class on logic and learn about the slippery slope fallacy.
Yes cause publishing information in an academic journal is keeping it from the public. Who cares if it's expensive, you've heard of a library right?
Over here in America we only have the red light cameras (that I know of), so it would be pretty expensive to install an entire system like that, but I guess there's proof that it can be made profitable so...
The only thing is I don't like the idea of there being a SQL database of intersections I've passed through. I'd be much more comfortable with a system that could catch speeders without keeping track of their travel routes.
The way you're setting things up you have to be able to rely on the fact that people are driving straight for a long distance with no stop lights. It's just too restrictive, you're not going to catch enough people to justify the cost of the system.