While I agree utterly and completely, the possibility of such a case needing a jury is low, when there's almost certainly going to be several camera recordings available from the vehicles in question as well as surrounding buildings/vehicles.
WASTE became popular in our area just as LANning was ending its heyday. Even now I think the whole course of technology could have been altered if WASTE was utilised in a "corporate VPN" fashion, instead of the rise of Juniper routers and Sharepoint spaces, we could have had much simpler secure work-collaboration protocols.
My parents have a book published in 1849, "The Chemistry of Modern Life" and it's interesting to see how they transition very deliberately between "technical" and then "dumbed-down" descriptions of things.
It's as jarring as Star Trek's habit of "30 seconds of technobabble followed by a metaphor involving a balloon" trope they keep hammering.
It's telling just how completely successful the social media revolution has been, when we don't remember that two short decades ago 3rd-party car navigation options that relied on maps loaded on the device and GPS input and that's all. No SIM cards (though they could have done so at the time), no telemetry.
The experience was even comparable to today's experience - I've been auto-routed around a road closure, like, twice in 5 years? And it _failed_ to route me around a road closure probably twice as well?
When I was about ten, a math teacher once asked me whether the number 0.9999... (infinitely repeating) was different than 1. I said, with my child's intuition, that of course it was. He then challenged me to write down a number that was in between them, because if they were not the same number then there would be many (in fact, infinitely many) numbers between them. I couldn't, of course: the best I could do was to write 0.9999...5, which falls into the same category error as "infinity plus one / infinity plus two".
Now, decades later, I get it better. The number 0.99999... is 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 + 9/10000 + ..., which approaches 1 asymptotically the same way that 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + ... approaches 1. Under many circumstances, you can treat that number as if it was 1, which neatly answers Zeno's Paradox. (Though beware of the limitations of that analysis: 1/n approaches infinity as n approaches 0, but 1/0 is not equal to infinity. Because 1/n approaches infinity only as n approaches 0 from the positive direction. If you look at the sequence 1/-0.1, 1/-0.01, 1/-0.001, etc. where n approaches 0 from the negative direction, that approaches negative infinity. A function that has two different limits as you approach the same number from two different directions cannot have its limit substituted like that).
This is one of my life goals is to prepare my kids to troll their math teachers with the dual numbers and the claim that .999... is obviously 1-ε. Goal is to convince the teacher .999...≠1. Bonus points if they instead convince the teacher to doubt that complex numbers exist.
It really comes down to what semantics we attach to "=" when one of the sides is an infinite series.
The "equals to" sign that we have used prior to that mental exercise was for finite terms only, we had not had to deal with infinitely many terms before that leap in thought. So now we have to extend the notion in a way that is backward compatible.
A convenient one is it is equal to its limit if it exists.
> semantics we attach to "=" when one of the sides is an infinite series
I would say that the semantics are about what an infinite series itself is, not about the equal sign. Once we have the common analytic notion of convergence of an infinite series, then the equality makes sense. The issue is that an infinite series is not an actual sum, but, formally, it is a sequence (of the partial sums). As you say, we represent the limit of the sequence of the partial sums with the same notation and only in the case that we have absolute convergence, but that's basically because we use the same notation for two different things (the sequence of the partial sums, and the limit of that). If we know we refer to the limit, I don't think there is any semantic complication with the equal sign.
I had a fig at my work desk for a couple of years. Work moved buildings. The new aircon killed it. No matter how much I watered it, it kept drying out.
It was still trying to live off its two remaining leaves, when I picked it up by its trunk and noticed it was completely hollow and almost made of paper. It was utterly desiccated.
> The lead singer caught my eye and gave me a wide grin
Daft Punk doesn't have a singer and unless it was a very early show they wouldn't have seen them smile. Most big beat shows wouldn't have a dedicated vocalist. I'd guess Underworld or Prodigy, but lean toward Underworld.
A UK trance artist called Deathboy left directory-traversal open on his website about 23 year ago. Since then I've had a lot of mp3's that he's never released or put on albums, which is sad because a lot of them are pretty great.
Similarly (also from ~2003), the (Australian) ABC's website held a lot of recorded breakfast radio show clips from when Adam & Wil hosted it, getting the awesome comedy band Tripod [0] to write songs in an hour. Many of these were released on their CD's, but nowhere near all of them.
Eventually that ABC server was shutdown due to lack of government funds. There's a very good chance I'm the only one on the planet with these excellent songs & interviews from those shows.
reply