Okay, let me rephrase: abusing power in order to violate personal privacy, which, while still ambiguous, is definitely a Bad Thing, perpetrated against another, unwilling person, whereas cocaine use is a potentially Bad Thing perpetrated against oneself.
Moreover, specificity is more or less irrelevant. Causing the death of a living creature is really vague, and covers everything from squishing an ant to harvesting a plant to murder, whereas engaging in respiratory functions is rather specific, but the first category is clearly worse than the second and it would be silly to suggest the reverse.
The concern isn't that they'll keep you arrested or that they'll use "he wanted a lawyer" as evidence, but that by looking bad to them they'll make you the prime suspect and focus their efforts on you rather than on whoever actually did the kidnapping. Rather than searching for whoever did it, the GP is concerned that they'll focus their efforts on trying to get something solid on you.
That said, even if you do get the assholes, I think that one of their superiors would be more concerned with covering their bases, since they'd look way worse if they focused all their efforts on the parent when it was someone else than if they spread their efforts and it ended up being the parent.
I agree that this guy deserves not to still be slammed for this, but to say that using cocaine is worse than the violation of personal privacy is just silly.
AC is multiplatform in that it runs on a PC or an Xbox or whatever, but it was distinctly designed with the console in mind and the PC far out of mind. The interface ranges from bad to inane, and many game features clearly exist to compensate for console issues without fixing them for the more capable PC.
Of course, you can't blame AC. It's just part of a growing trend. Sometimes it works out and the PC version seems properly designed, but, more and more these days, it seems that PC isn't even a second thought any more.
Well, yes, but in this case the kiddie porn was mislabeled as what would have been legitimate porn. If that was truly FBI bait, then, IANAL, but it probably would be entrapment, since they tricked the guy into committing an illegal act he otherwise would not have committed. Though, that's assuming this was FBI bait, which I don't believe, and their bait is more likely appropriately titled so they can actually catch the guys they're looking for rather than any random passersby.
*while I personally cringe any time someone "plays the race card", I do think it's weird that Congress (or some State legislature) hasn't applied the same technique to squash the "meth epidemic" and wonder if that is because there seem to be meth heads in all skin tones.
If the amount of meth production in my ~95% white hometown is any indication, either there are meth heads in a number of skin tones, or people are afraid of applying such profiling to white people. Honestly, neither would surprise me.
I am impressed that you seem to have gone beyond the usual "I don't RTFA", and even the recent rash of "I don't RTFS", and moved straight into "I don't RTFC".
Actually, we're pretty sure we know the (wrong) proof Fermat thought he had. It's highly possible that he just realized the flaw in the proof after writing that but before writing up the proof.
I'm not advocating piracy here, I'm just saying that forcing the consumer to buy "special" hardware in order to play a game that would work rather well on any PC on the market is a dick move.
And yet we have three major consoles on the market right now.... Interesting.
So, you think that if you were to buy something today (a couch, a table, a pair of pants) that was first marketed 15 years ago, that you should get a depreciated refund if you returned it?
Spam was first marketed more than fifteen years ago, and the price has gone up. I do not think that word means what you think it means. Either you want the word "sold" or you're way the hell off in left field. They're still shipping XP, so clearly it's a current product, and you should get the full value for it.
Actually, the parent means marketed. Yes, spam was first marketed marketed more than fifteen years ago and the price has gone up. That's wonderful. However, if I bought a can today and, for whatever reason, returned it to the store, I expect to receive a full refund of the amount for which I bought it, not some lesser value since the spam is now worth less.
Now, the spam example was terrible since, unlike OSes and tables, since those are relatively large purchases that you only need once every several years (for some sliding value of several), whereas spam ostensibly fits in as 'food', which you generally buy for 3 meals plus snacks or so per day.
2nd did you RTFA you posted from Wikipedia!?! It shows all the "Mystical" ways people try to show.999~ = 1 and then GOES ON to show IT DOESN'T!!
Actually, it shows that it is true, and then goes on to show constructions people specifically to make it not true. In fact, your "breaking subtraction" quote specifically states that it was part of a construction intended to make.999~
And look at the second article, it states the same false crap, 1/3 =.333~ no, 1/3 does not equal.333~
You can "say" it does and then add three together and say 1!!!
That's like saying, I'll let 1/3 = 4. So, 4 + 4 + 4 = 1 1/3 should not be represented by 4 anymore than it should be represented by.333~
Except that the equivalence 1/3 =.333~ is provable and 1/3 = 4 isn't (in our usual system). Other than that huge fact, yeah, they're exactly the same.
Cut a pie. You can cut 1/3 of the pie slice. Now cut a pie in.333~ You never make a cut, because you you move 3/10 or the way around the pie from where you start, then you start to slice, OH WAIT, you need to move 3/100 further, now you get ready to cut again, OOOPS wait, you need to move 3/1000 closer now, get ready to cut, HOLY CRAP you need to move again.
Except numbers don't work that way. The number.999~ is a specific number, one which we can define in terms of a process or sequence if we wish, but it is not that process or sequence itself. If I want to cut.333~ of a pie, I'll make my first cut and then move.333~ of the way around the pie and slice. Incidentally, if I start from the same 0 point, this slice will be identical to the one I'd make if I went 1/3 of the way around the pie.
Really, the only way I'd agree with you that 1/3 !=.333~ in decimal is if you complained that 1/3 is integer division and that 1/3 is really 0, but then we're just being silly.
I said I'd never reply to an AC on this topic, but this one is being particularly bad, so I have to do it.
Yes,.111~ in base 2 is 1. And.222~ in base 3 is 1. Incidentally,.111~ in base 2 =.222~ in base 3 =.999~ in base 10. There is no difference in precision, and it's silly to even suggest. It indicates that you are not thinking in infinity, and that you believe an infinitely repeating decimal has an end point.
First, note that.111~ in base 2 and.222~ in base 3 and.999~ in base 10 and all other similar cases share a similar sum: $\sum_{n=1}^\inf (r-1)(\frac{1}{r})^n$. This is a geometric sum starting with n=1, so we can quickly find the sum to be $\frac{(r-1)}{1-\frac{1}{r}} - (r-1) = \frac{(r-1)}{\frac{r-1}{r}} - (r-1) = r - (r-1) = 1$, so, yes, this "trick" does work in every base.
Your problem is that you are thinking of the number.999~ as a process, when it's really a set number with an infinite number of decimal places, just like every other decimal number (the fact that some numbers have most of their fractional digits be 0 doesn't mean they don't exist or that you can ignore those digits).
Of course, the multiply-by-10-and-subtract proof is just a quick and easy-to-understand proof. I much prefer using some concepts from real analysis, but they would clearly go over your head.
It's one thing to insist that you simply choose not to work as a fireman if you are afraid of fire danger, since in that case handling fires is your job. In the case of people smoking, however, you can only really say the same thing in a smoking bar. Regulations protecting employees from smoking customers are truly in the same class as other regulations regarding workplace safety.
As an asthmatic who grew up in a rural area outside a small, pretty much unpolluted city in southern Oregon, you can't convince my my asthma is directly caused by pollution and smog in urban areas. I'm not blaming smokers for my asthma, but they certainly don't make it easier on me when they're smoking in my breathing space.
That said, I'm against penalties for smoking in most outdoor areas (and believe that reasons for bans inside most commercial and public places are obvious), and have become quite adept and not breathing for extended periods of times without triggering my asthma.
Quite mysterious, actually. The fact that the quaternions can reflect part of the real world is mind-boggling. Then you start looking at structures that don't even involve numbers at all....
And then, upon playing with them for long enough, we discover that they actually do model the world in some manner or another (and then we are disappointed). It's certainly all the evidence (though, not proof) I need that maths is discovered, not invented.
While the US does have provisions to make sure that if you're wanted in California and found in Texas that you can still be arrested and tried and all that, the US does not say you are breaking California law if you are in Texas and do something that would be illegal in California.
TBH, if you really want a none-of-the-above vote, don't vote for the candidate you think is most qualified. Vote for the third party candidate you think is most likely to receive the most votes out of any third party, whether you like the candidate (or even the party!) at all. Enough votes means that the third party gets treated as a main party the next time around, which should help people get at least more out of the two-party thinking.
It's about $90-$100 for a 1TB WD Caviar Black which, quite frankly, is the only terabyte drive your average home user should even look at. For those of us looking for something enterprise-grade, then, yeah, an RE3 is a bit more, but we're certainly not average.
No, but because some people have wrongly attacked or killed some gays, you should easily be able to see why you are foolish to claim that the people attacking the anti-gays are necessarily representative.
Oh, no, don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those silly people insisting that you must subsidize high speed internet to those people out in the middle of nowhere. But when the GP starts saying that such people shouldn't receive power and water, that's an issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, let me rephrase: abusing power in order to violate personal privacy, which, while still ambiguous, is definitely a Bad Thing, perpetrated against another, unwilling person, whereas cocaine use is a potentially Bad Thing perpetrated against oneself.
Moreover, specificity is more or less irrelevant. Causing the death of a living creature is really vague, and covers everything from squishing an ant to harvesting a plant to murder, whereas engaging in respiratory functions is rather specific, but the first category is clearly worse than the second and it would be silly to suggest the reverse.
The concern isn't that they'll keep you arrested or that they'll use "he wanted a lawyer" as evidence, but that by looking bad to them they'll make you the prime suspect and focus their efforts on you rather than on whoever actually did the kidnapping. Rather than searching for whoever did it, the GP is concerned that they'll focus their efforts on trying to get something solid on you.
That said, even if you do get the assholes, I think that one of their superiors would be more concerned with covering their bases, since they'd look way worse if they focused all their efforts on the parent when it was someone else than if they spread their efforts and it ended up being the parent.
I agree that this guy deserves not to still be slammed for this, but to say that using cocaine is worse than the violation of personal privacy is just silly.
AC is multiplatform in that it runs on a PC or an Xbox or whatever, but it was distinctly designed with the console in mind and the PC far out of mind. The interface ranges from bad to inane, and many game features clearly exist to compensate for console issues without fixing them for the more capable PC.
Of course, you can't blame AC. It's just part of a growing trend. Sometimes it works out and the PC version seems properly designed, but, more and more these days, it seems that PC isn't even a second thought any more.
Well, yes, but in this case the kiddie porn was mislabeled as what would have been legitimate porn. If that was truly FBI bait, then, IANAL, but it probably would be entrapment, since they tricked the guy into committing an illegal act he otherwise would not have committed. Though, that's assuming this was FBI bait, which I don't believe, and their bait is more likely appropriately titled so they can actually catch the guys they're looking for rather than any random passersby.
*while I personally cringe any time someone "plays the race card", I do think it's weird that Congress (or some State legislature) hasn't applied the same technique to squash the "meth epidemic" and wonder if that is because there seem to be meth heads in all skin tones.
If the amount of meth production in my ~95% white hometown is any indication, either there are meth heads in a number of skin tones, or people are afraid of applying such profiling to white people. Honestly, neither would surprise me.
I am impressed that you seem to have gone beyond the usual "I don't RTFA", and even the recent rash of "I don't RTFS", and moved straight into "I don't RTFC".
Actually, we're pretty sure we know the (wrong) proof Fermat thought he had. It's highly possible that he just realized the flaw in the proof after writing that but before writing up the proof.
You are replying to the wrong post. I apologize for my lack of quote tags on that, but I was quoting that bit. I was arguing against the point.
I'm not advocating piracy here, I'm just saying that forcing the consumer to buy "special" hardware in order to play a game that would work rather well on any PC on the market is a dick move.
And yet we have three major consoles on the market right now.... Interesting.
You could say that about consoles in general, and yet there are three major ones making money right now.
So, you think that if you were to buy something today (a couch, a table, a pair of pants) that was first marketed 15 years ago, that you should get a depreciated refund if you returned it?
Spam was first marketed more than fifteen years ago, and the price has gone up. I do not think that word means what you think it means. Either you want the word "sold" or you're way the hell off in left field. They're still shipping XP, so clearly it's a current product, and you should get the full value for it.
Actually, the parent means marketed. Yes, spam was first marketed marketed more than fifteen years ago and the price has gone up. That's wonderful. However, if I bought a can today and, for whatever reason, returned it to the store, I expect to receive a full refund of the amount for which I bought it, not some lesser value since the spam is now worth less.
Now, the spam example was terrible since, unlike OSes and tables, since those are relatively large purchases that you only need once every several years (for some sliding value of several), whereas spam ostensibly fits in as 'food', which you generally buy for 3 meals plus snacks or so per day.
2nd did you RTFA you posted from Wikipedia!?! It shows all the "Mystical" ways people try to show .999~ = 1 and then GOES ON to show IT DOESN'T!!
Actually, it shows that it is true, and then goes on to show constructions people specifically to make it not true. In fact, your "breaking subtraction" quote specifically states that it was part of a construction intended to make .999~
And look at the second article, it states the same false crap, 1/3 = .333~ no, 1/3 does not equal .333~
You can "say" it does and then add three together and say 1!!!
That's like saying, I'll let 1/3 = 4. So, 4 + 4 + 4 = 1 1/3 should not be represented by 4 anymore than it should be represented by .333~
Except that the equivalence 1/3 = .333~ is provable and 1/3 = 4 isn't (in our usual system). Other than that huge fact, yeah, they're exactly the same.
Cut a pie. You can cut 1/3 of the pie slice. Now cut a pie in .333~ You never make a cut, because you you move 3/10 or the way around the pie from where you start, then you start to slice, OH WAIT, you need to move 3/100 further, now you get ready to cut again, OOOPS wait, you need to move 3/1000 closer now, get ready to cut, HOLY CRAP you need to move again.
Except numbers don't work that way. The number .999~ is a specific number, one which we can define in terms of a process or sequence if we wish, but it is not that process or sequence itself. If I want to cut .333~ of a pie, I'll make my first cut and then move .333~ of the way around the pie and slice. Incidentally, if I start from the same 0 point, this slice will be identical to the one I'd make if I went 1/3 of the way around the pie.
Really, the only way I'd agree with you that 1/3 != .333~ in decimal is if you complained that 1/3 is integer division and that 1/3 is really 0, but then we're just being silly.
I said I'd never reply to an AC on this topic, but this one is being particularly bad, so I have to do it.
Yes, .111~ in base 2 is 1. And .222~ in base 3 is 1. Incidentally, .111~ in base 2 = .222~ in base 3 = .999~ in base 10. There is no difference in precision, and it's silly to even suggest. It indicates that you are not thinking in infinity, and that you believe an infinitely repeating decimal has an end point.
First, note that .111~ in base 2 and .222~ in base 3 and .999~ in base 10 and all other similar cases share a similar sum: $\sum_{n=1}^\inf (r-1)(\frac{1}{r})^n$. This is a geometric sum starting with n=1, so we can quickly find the sum to be $\frac{(r-1)}{1-\frac{1}{r}} - (r-1) = \frac{(r-1)}{\frac{r-1}{r}} - (r-1) = r - (r-1) = 1$, so, yes, this "trick" does work in every base.
Your problem is that you are thinking of the number .999~ as a process, when it's really a set number with an infinite number of decimal places, just like every other decimal number (the fact that some numbers have most of their fractional digits be 0 doesn't mean they don't exist or that you can ignore those digits).
Of course, the multiply-by-10-and-subtract proof is just a quick and easy-to-understand proof. I much prefer using some concepts from real analysis, but they would clearly go over your head.
It's one thing to insist that you simply choose not to work as a fireman if you are afraid of fire danger, since in that case handling fires is your job. In the case of people smoking, however, you can only really say the same thing in a smoking bar. Regulations protecting employees from smoking customers are truly in the same class as other regulations regarding workplace safety.
As an asthmatic who grew up in a rural area outside a small, pretty much unpolluted city in southern Oregon, you can't convince my my asthma is directly caused by pollution and smog in urban areas. I'm not blaming smokers for my asthma, but they certainly don't make it easier on me when they're smoking in my breathing space.
That said, I'm against penalties for smoking in most outdoor areas (and believe that reasons for bans inside most commercial and public places are obvious), and have become quite adept and not breathing for extended periods of times without triggering my asthma.
Quite mysterious, actually. The fact that the quaternions can reflect part of the real world is mind-boggling. Then you start looking at structures that don't even involve numbers at all....
And then, upon playing with them for long enough, we discover that they actually do model the world in some manner or another (and then we are disappointed). It's certainly all the evidence (though, not proof) I need that maths is discovered, not invented.
--an algebraic number theorist in training
There's debate about which was the original usage, but these days it is a fact that Duck Tape is a type of duct tape.
I think he was going more for a "life sentence" than for a "death penalty" there....
While the US does have provisions to make sure that if you're wanted in California and found in Texas that you can still be arrested and tried and all that, the US does not say you are breaking California law if you are in Texas and do something that would be illegal in California.
TBH, if you really want a none-of-the-above vote, don't vote for the candidate you think is most qualified. Vote for the third party candidate you think is most likely to receive the most votes out of any third party, whether you like the candidate (or even the party!) at all. Enough votes means that the third party gets treated as a main party the next time around, which should help people get at least more out of the two-party thinking.
It's about $90-$100 for a 1TB WD Caviar Black which, quite frankly, is the only terabyte drive your average home user should even look at. For those of us looking for something enterprise-grade, then, yeah, an RE3 is a bit more, but we're certainly not average.
No, but because some people have wrongly attacked or killed some gays, you should easily be able to see why you are foolish to claim that the people attacking the anti-gays are necessarily representative.
Oh, no, don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those silly people insisting that you must subsidize high speed internet to those people out in the middle of nowhere. But when the GP starts saying that such people shouldn't receive power and water, that's an issue.