As one who certainly doesn't think "morality should be legislated" (a liberal from way back), I can't say I agree with you. I don't think this law is about morality, and I don't think that's what GP was saying.
One may assert that a right to be free of harassment. Also, someone could assert that he has a right to harass whomever he pleases, and perhaps come up with arguments to support that assertion. We have many rights; just how many is more a subject of belief than of fact. Some rights are recognized by general society. Of those, some are protected, some aren't. None are guaranteed. (Can any system, other than physically isolating everybody from everybody else, guarantee that nobody will be murdered, for example?)
What this is about is which of these rights (if either) is deserving of legal protection. In the case of Texas, they opted to give legal protection to the former. (I agree with the former assertion, but agreement does not equate to agreeing that the right is worthy of legal protection.)
Recognition and protection of legal rights certainly belongs in the domain of legislative power, while "morality" does not. So in debating the merits of a law, if you want to frame it in terms of morality, then I don't care which side you are on, I'm not really interested in hearing it.
Ah, well, I realized after posting that I'd left out the detail that there is one prime number that is divisible by 3. So 3 and 7 are the only consecutive Mersenne numbers that are prime.
On the other hand, I hope their "opt-in" defense works. Such a precedent might discourage the use of "opt-out" by those who still use it. And BTW, I consider it to be "opt-out" if you have to uncheck an "opt-in" box that's pre-checked when the web form loads.
If 2^x - 1 is prime, then neither 2^x - 1 nor 2^x is divisible by 3. Of any 3 consecutive integers, one must be divisible by 3. Therefore 2^x + 1 is divisible by 3.
Therefore 2*(2^x+1) = 2^(x+1) + 2 is divisible by 3, and so is 2^(x+1) - 1.
A 12 million digit prime number, the largest such number ever discovered, has landed a voluntary math research group a $100,000 prize from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).
Sorry, I should have said "categories of apps". I'm sure there are thousands of specific apps that are available on one but not on the other. I have lots of apps on my phone with names like "Androbex", "LapseDroid", and so on. I bet they're not on the iPhone.
iTunes is #1 on the list of audio applications that I'm specifically not waiting for an Android version of.
Wrong on that point, hardware supports it and so does the OS now.
I never said the hardware didn't support multitouch. We are talking about Android, not specific phones. As far as the OS supporting it, my understanding is they've got it implemented but disabled for fear of legal action from Apple (at least that was the case in February. If that's no longer the case, I still don't see it in the 1.6 version that T-Mobile pushed out to users in the last week (it looks like that push included an update to Gallery but still no multi-touch zoom).
The rest of your post is just preaching to the choir (yawn).
Slashdot Mirror
Then I'd suggest:
Tioga Pass (elev. approx. 10000 feet)
Pike's Peak (elev. approx. 14000 feet)
Understand that the rules don't prevent bandwidth capping. They prevent selective filtering.
That's "battery".
As one who certainly doesn't think "morality should be legislated" (a liberal from way back), I can't say I agree with you. I don't think this law is about morality, and I don't think that's what GP was saying.
One may assert that a right to be free of harassment. Also, someone could assert that he has a right to harass whomever he pleases, and perhaps come up with arguments to support that assertion. We have many rights; just how many is more a subject of belief than of fact. Some rights are recognized by general society. Of those, some are protected, some aren't. None are guaranteed. (Can any system, other than physically isolating everybody from everybody else, guarantee that nobody will be murdered, for example?)
What this is about is which of these rights (if either) is deserving of legal protection. In the case of Texas, they opted to give legal protection to the former. (I agree with the former assertion, but agreement does not equate to agreeing that the right is worthy of legal protection.)
Recognition and protection of legal rights certainly belongs in the domain of legislative power, while "morality" does not. So in debating the merits of a law, if you want to frame it in terms of morality, then I don't care which side you are on, I'm not really interested in hearing it.
Whoosh, but you posted anonymously so I guess you'll never know.
Well done, sir!
But all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality: aleph-null. So skine was right.
Ah, well, I realized after posting that I'd left out the detail that there is one prime number that is divisible by 3. So 3 and 7 are the only consecutive Mersenne numbers that are prime.
I'd say it depends on *when* you look at it.
...of stupidity.
On the other hand, I hope their "opt-in" defense works. Such a precedent might discourage the use of "opt-out" by those who still use it. And BTW, I consider it to be "opt-out" if you have to uncheck an "opt-in" box that's pre-checked when the web form loads.
Then we just need to find *that* number...and it's reassuring that the problem is bounded.
(/facetious mode)
But the other hole in GGP's proposal is that the sequence "all known primes" has lots of gaps in it.
If you're Bill Gates, you can try to factor them.
It is the second largest prime: Both of all primes and Mersennes.
Wow, does that mean we're close to discovering the largest prime?
And it's easily proven:
If 2^x - 1 is prime, then neither 2^x - 1 nor 2^x is divisible by 3. Of any 3 consecutive integers, one must be divisible by 3. Therefore 2^x + 1 is divisible by 3.
Therefore 2*(2^x+1) = 2^(x+1) + 2 is divisible by 3, and so is 2^(x+1) - 1.
From TFA:
A 12 million digit prime number, the largest such number ever discovered, has landed a voluntary math research group a $100,000 prize from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).
I'd hate to learn that EFF is using slave labor.
Yes and no.
You had to bring Schrodinger's cat into this, didn't you?
he predicted the magnetic charge quanta to be 68.5 times the electrical charge quanta
68.5 = 137/2 (half the fine structure constant). I'm guessing that's not coincidental.
What happens if the mass is imaginary, or complex?
I would think they would be very happy! Those oddball zero terms can be filled in. Symmetry is restored.
And neither the Slashdot summary or the article to which Slashdot links is willing to link to documentation.
Please stop anthropomorphizing the article and summary. They hate that!
So "the base" are belong to all of us?
You are a frikkin' genius, I'll tell you.
Everything about the Democratic party has become so amazingly bland from appeasing the coalition groups. Thanks for proving my point.
There is no "democrat [sic] base". Both major US parties are seeing their so-called bases erode very quickly.
Sorry to see you are too stuck in the rhetoric of the 1980s to see that.
OK, clue me in, Mr. Genius Man.
Sorry, I should have said "categories of apps". I'm sure there are thousands of specific apps that are available on one but not on the other. I have lots of apps on my phone with names like "Androbex", "LapseDroid", and so on. I bet they're not on the iPhone.
iTunes is #1 on the list of audio applications that I'm specifically not waiting for an Android version of.
Wrong on that point, hardware supports it and so does the OS now.
I never said the hardware didn't support multitouch. We are talking about Android, not specific phones. As far as the OS supporting it, my understanding is they've got it implemented but disabled for fear of legal action from Apple (at least that was the case in February. If that's no longer the case, I still don't see it in the 1.6 version that T-Mobile pushed out to users in the last week (it looks like that push included an update to Gallery but still no multi-touch zoom).
The rest of your post is just preaching to the choir (yawn).