Wow, out of 45,000 units shipped, you managed to find... wait for it... 12 failures.
Now, I don't claim to be a math whiz or anything, but... I'm gonna say the failure rate is quite acceptable.
Lets be generous and say you found 1/100th of the actual failures, so that means there would be 1200 failures... a whopping... wait for it... 2.6% failure rate.
Holy hell batman! Stop the presses!
Yep because 2.6% failure rate that can lead to your house and children burning is pretty remarkable. It'd be great if cars braking systems only had a 2.6% failure rate. I'd buy a new one of those tomorrow! Awesome job. Do you like being dumb? Edit: Btw, the pre-ordered unit that I sold failed within weeks. That was a few months ago. As far as I know, your customer service team has failed to reply to his attempted contacts to remedy the situation. I sold it because I had the intuition to realize that your company is awful. Obviously, I made the right choice to dump your product...because it sucks. |
|
|
|
We will never be able to prove god....
We will never be able to prove unicorns.... If unicorns don't exist, how did you think of it? This is actually a very interesting idea...that concepts in and of themselves exist without a real-life counterpart (or, they are their own real "counterpart"). Whenever we have a concept or idea about anything, even something existing only within our imaginations, that thought must abide by logical properties in order to be formed. In other words, every thought or idea is logical to the extent that it adheres to a logical structure, and thus it represents the logical possibility of an empirical counterpart (i.e something existing outside of the imagination and which is observable to many). Surely we can imagine unicorns existing on some other planet as some kind of flying horse with a horn on its head. What we can't imagine is a creature that could not exist logically in any context, even a hypothetical one. To this extent, to say that unicorns exist in real life is a plausible conclusion. Also, to say God exists is plausible just based upon the assertion alone -- that is, because you can imagine God as omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, etc., it is plausible that this is real. It's not sound to conclude unicorns exist unless you can also prove that concepts have at least some real component(s). This is debatable, and while I would tend to believe concepts do have some empirical component (perhaps even mass), I don't believe they are purely empirical, and either have non-empirical components or they lose their empirical nature depending upon the context in which they are described. I think the reason why this is a particularly interesting topic to me is the following: If concepts are purely and only non-empirical, then how do we explain their origin, and how do we explain this origin is real? In contrast, if concepts are purely and only empirical, how do we explain metacognition, self-reference, and the phenomenon of 'feelings'? Here's one for you, @Rassah, since you assume an absolute separation between objective and subjective reality, or what you consider 'real' and 'unreal' respectively. If we acknowledge the phenomenon of cognition in general as a "real" event that can lead to the formation of entirely "unreal" concepts, don't we have a huge problem on our hands? How can something real produce something totally and utterly unreal? It's these kinds of questions that have led me to believe that concepts have real components, and so it is true to state unicorns exist at least in the context of a real imagination obeying real logical properties. You could say that an imagination is like a Universe in that the content of one's imagination obeys certain rules and laws; one of these rules is that imaginative content is binary, and accordingly we can not imagine simultaneous yes/no states (try imagining a shirt that is both red and not red). Actually, I tend to believe the Universe is also like an imagination in that it acts like a mind (which would make sense since minds interpret and define the Universe!). @Rassah, when you talk about some objective reality that can exist totally independent of any subjectivity or observation, you make a logical fallacy (actually two) by imposing an assumption that happens to be false upon a hypothetical scenario that has never been observed, and in fact could never be observed. Your assumption is actually your conclusion; you assume that objectivity and subjectivity are mutually exclusive. But, how could you possibly observe a Universe that is totally absent of observation? This is an inherent contradiction and it could never possibly happen. I find it really interesting that you're forming conclusions about a totally hypothetical and non-empirical event when you're such a stark advocate of empirical study and the scientific method. |
|
|
|
So? It's a pretty easy business to be in while BTC is rising parabolically. When it stops, and they are all now losing money on every transaction they process (which there will be a sudden avalanche of due to everyone holding BTC trying to get out of it), I don't see how they will last.
dude, just stop trolling. too may trolls bait smart people with their nonsense - bitpay doesn't have currency risk either they just sell of on exchanges at market orders (that's why their prices change it adjust to what they can buy and sell at plus their possible markup)you failed at making shit up So then what's the point of the regular guy merchant being a client of bitpay, etc. if the payment processor just transfers the volatility risk back on to them? In my non-bitcoin life I deal with retail merchants every day, and in trying to sell them on the Bitcoin concept, these are genuine concerns that come up in discussion. This does nothing to stabilize prices and accommodating the fluctuation would makes their lives a lot harder than necessary. For what return? Well, the merchant can reduce the prices (i.e. consumer wins) because the payment processor is charging ~1% instead of ~3%. Then, the merchant wins too because they increase their profit margin. And, the payment processor wins because they take ~1% cut. It's a win-win-win. And, nobody is exposed to risk of volatility. Only the Bitcoin buyer at the end of the line is exposed to volatility...unless, you know, they do something silly like spend it. |
|
|
|
So? It's a pretty easy business to be in while BTC is rising parabolically. When it stops, and they are all now losing money on every transaction they process (which there will be a sudden avalanche of due to everyone holding BTC trying to get out of it), I don't see how they will last.
A payment processor knows the price that they can get for a Bitcoin. They charge the merchant that amount plus some small fee (the profit). Here's a flow chart: Consumer --> Payment Processor (via merchant's deposit address) --> Bitcoin buyer All of this happens in seconds. The payment processor isn't exposed to risk of volatility unless they choose to be. |
|
|
|
no good reason? well, the senate has spoken about it. before then, it was up in the air whether we thought government was okay with it. so people speculated, thinking that more people would invest into BTC because you know.. it didn't seem like government was against it.
now we are hearing more and more companies are starting to accept it too.
are those reasons not good enough for you?
The senate didn't say anything they couldn't easily backtrack on later if it suits them. It certainly was not an endorsement, only a rather bland concession that virtual currencies (not, specifically, bitcoin) should be watched, but not touched, for the time being. Companies accepting Bitcoin is great but it means nothing long term. There is nothing preventing them from taking down their bitcoin windows stickers when they feel like the extra volatility isn't worth the extra business any more. And the media will eat this up: "All across the country, more and more businesses are fed up with Bitcoin and pulling the plug" Non-issue with payment processors like BitPay. They can't lose to volatility if their payment processor converts to fiat. You mean the one payment processor, Bitpay. A company that is still living off VC money and thus can afford to burn investment cash to run a risky insurance hedge until it runs out. Then what? Uh, there's like at least a dozen... |
|
|
|
no good reason? well, the senate has spoken about it. before then, it was up in the air whether we thought government was okay with it. so people speculated, thinking that more people would invest into BTC because you know.. it didn't seem like government was against it.
now we are hearing more and more companies are starting to accept it too.
are those reasons not good enough for you?
The senate didn't say anything they couldn't easily backtrack on later if it suits them. It certainly was not an endorsement, only a rather bland concession that virtual currencies (not, specifically, bitcoin) should be watched, but not touched, for the time being. Companies accepting Bitcoin is great but it means nothing long term. There is nothing preventing them from taking down their bitcoin windows stickers when they feel like the extra volatility isn't worth the extra business any more. And the media will eat this up: "All across the country, more and more businesses are fed up with Bitcoin and pulling the plug" Non-issue with payment processors like BitPay. They can't lose to volatility if their payment processor converts to fiat. |
|
|
|
While the infinity example was obviously intended to be humorous, please tell me you're aware that there is a mathematical proof demonstrating some infinities are larger than others.
If you are talking about Cantor's diagonalization, where the number p differs by a decimal digit from every real number n, and thus has no real number partner, the my answer is that p can not exist, or is an imaginary number. The reason is that since there is an infinite number of real number n's, you will never come to a conclusion on what p must be. In other words, it will take an infinite amount of n numbers for p to be created, or put another way, it will take an infinite amount of time, calculations, attempts, or whatever, in order to create p. So you will always get closer to creating p without actually creating it. Yeah, that's one way of illustrating the point. |
|
|
|
1) Except you can logically prove that reality cannot only be objective, and so your assumption is wrong.
I'm still looking for such proof. 4) If you were a microbe on an elephant's butt, would you know that the ground you're walking on is an elephant?
Nope. but I wouldn't throw out random subjective coonclusions about what ground I'm walking on, either. I would only use conclusions I can observe and come to, and get closer to the correct answer by process of elimination (I should be able to tell it's not dirt, sand, or a furry fox butt). I wouldn't subjectively make up some story that sounds great, and claim that it's just as valid a conclusion as everything else (as the "God did it" folks do) 1) How much do you need? What kind of proof/evidence supports 1 + 1 = 2 aside from self-contained mathematical examples? The fact that 1+1 = 2 is pretty obvious isn't it? Well, it's equally obvious (elementary school level kind of obvious) that mental and physical reality are fundamentally inseparable. It's obvious because we already have established logical properties that directly state that it's impossible to assert an absolute separation between any two things without committing a logical fallacy, just like we have established mathematical rules of operation. Basically, failing to acknowledge that mental and physical reality are fundamentally related is like disagreeing that 1 + 1 = 2 under any possible interpretation. As soon as you assert an absolute difference between two things you immediately commit a logical fallacy. 2) The point is I don't know why you would select an empirical model of learning out of all the available methods to attempt to explain reality at such a high level of generality. The scientific method is ill-equipped for the task. If you're trying to formulate conclusions about something beyond the scope of the empirical model, then why not just pick a better model? You're just self-handicapping by using the empirical model. In this regard, you're like a bible banger for empiricism, and no matter how much I try to tell you that there's a whole world of knowledge that is totally (by definition) inaccessible through empiricism, for some reason you have a really hard time processing that. |
|
|
|
3 million USD per day to keep this system up woohoooooo is paying?  Lol, sell and run away mate, this is obviously not a game for you. that is exactly what this is - a game. Closest thing I can describe it to is a modified game of chicken. but people with no fear will get killed as they will hold until the final crash. so you have to be the bravest chicken that sells right as the final wave of "investors" buys in whenever that might be, before the ultimate collapse. @jasonjm You have said that you have a fair amount of trading experience, and I assume you've researched Bitcoin extensively before getting involved. What is your reasoning when you assert that Bitcoin will ultimately collapse? Have you given any consideration to the fact that it may actually grow to a much larger size and then last for some time as a viable means of exchange? it will ultimately collapse in my opinion for 6 reasons 1) there are too many fees relating to actually using bitcoin vs your credit card, there are fees all over the place on using bitcoin whether its losing 1%+ on the buysell conversion rate, or whether its every place you pass through taking their 1% commission. It is slower, you get no benefit, the merchant gets all the benefit - you get no dispute of charges, no points rewards. So literally no incentive to use bitcoins for legal purchases. 2) money going into bitcoin drives the price up, but adds no equity to the system, it leaves with the seller. So the only thing holding bitcoin up is the bids on the exchanges, which are dodgy to start off with. Bitcoin literally has no value outside of what the exchange bid price is. Even gold (which is bitcoin like in ways) can be used as jewelry or at much lower prices would have a lot of industrial uses. Most importantly a lot of central banks, therefore their governments, indirectly back gold. Go read an interview recently with a fed chairman where he was asked point blank if they would sell their gold to cover deficits and the answer was a simple no. Bitcoin does not have this level of support - not that I am promoting gold - i am not a goldbug. 3) the coins were distributed in an unfair and to be quite honest evil way. Whoever Satoshi is, he was a genius. This could have been quite easily solved by making the bitcoin algorithm reward miners with a certain number of coins per day based on something else - say based on the the total transaction volume of bitcoins in a day multiplied by the number of unique wallet addresses used. that way more coins come online as more people use it. So it DOESNT act like a pyramid, where all the early adopters have all the coins, and all the others are chasing fewer and fewer coins. Make it expand the coin supply at an acceptable rate - yet still make them more rare all the time so it doesnt inflate away. By bringing new supply on - based on more activity you keep prices way way more stable. If there is no increase in activity, then there will be no new coins mined that day. But noooooooo, Satoshi went the exact opposite route. More coins with nothing going on, and then less and less coins with more going on. Good for Satoshi, bad for us. 4) the exchanges are way too thin - no liquidity because of reason 3. Everyone is hoarding, not spending. Why spend bitcoins when they will be worth more because there are none to go around to match the massive interest in them? so then people argue you can STILL buy satoshis! - well do you really want to buy into a system where someone like the winklevoss hold so many coins, that in one day they can crash every western exchange at will. So what happens is you have these cycles of spikes and crashes. But what will eventually happens is the value of the coin becomes based on so few coins that when it comes time to sell, there will not nearly be enough to bids to hold it up, because the system will be so concentrated in the hands of so few. 5) massive waste of energy and resources used on mining wars. The higher the price goes the more miners invest. This becomes a direct drain on bitcoin, as the miners have to sell every day to support their infrastructure costs. This is like a vacuum sucking money out of bitcoin. If bitcoin were $10 000 right now, it would literally suck $25 000 000 dollars per day right out of bitcoin - and for what? it could perhaps have rather have been based on something logical like : 1 mining node per internet subnet /24 - if someone else on your subnet is trying to mine, sorry your software will keep trying have to wait for them to quit or put 24 hour max mining times. Mining equipment could be a regular computer CPU even an old one. So the network would be distributed way more evenly than currently it currently is - as its extremely difficult to get lots of /24 networks , hell it requires a whole lot of paperwork and justification nowdays, just for one /24- and with no waste on mining hardware or energy usage. you could also base a fraction of coins mined on wallets that have a lot of transactions (somehow not just roundtripping money, i guess the trans fee would have to be slightly more than the reward fee), rewarding people for using coins instead of hoarding. I dont know how practical any of these ideas are, I am just throwing stuff out there as alternatives to current problems, someone smarter than me will have better ideas. so where does that leave bitcoin? real use is for anything outside of the law. 6) if bitcoin somehow does not implode, governments might put it to an end because of illegal uses. And please no telling me how you can never stop bitcoin. You can easily stop bitcoin. Shut down the exchanges and use deep packet inspection to block all bitcoin traffic. Bitcoin is dead then. Maybe not in every country but unless you travel all over the world all the time, for you in your own country its dead. 1) Chicken and the egg problem again. Being a small market, there are a few clear market "leaders" who have the funding and customer base to stand on their own. Everything else is a side-business or a hobby of someone or some group of people. Bitcoin is an infant and hasn't grown enough to walk all on its own. As the market grows and competition increases, fees will naturally decrease, especially if Bitcoin is allowed free reign and isn't forced to walk a regulatory tightrope. 2) Having a payment system that allows one to exercise more control over their money is valuable. Facebook, as far as I know, doesn't have a single tangible asset outside of a few servers, buildings, and Facebook Credits. But, the social networking utility provided by Facebook is valuable to both consumers ("Yay, I get a page all about ME!") and to corporations ("What are they clicking on? What are they looking at? How long did they look at it? Are crop tops still in?"). Bitcoin is a means of transferring money to anyone in the world at any time without waiting days for a check or wire transfer to clear, without wondering if the coins are "good" or not, without...well, without a lot of the cost and hassle of traditional payment systems. If you know enough about Bitcoin you can set yourself up so that you're ready to send or receive a payment at any time, and I think people agree that while, at present, it is rather difficult to initially acquire bitcoins, actually using them is pretty damn simple. Once you're in the game, it becomes integrated into your natural way of life. 3) Whether the coins at the beginning were distributed 'fairly' is debatable. Bitcoin is a pretty radical concept (at least, radical compared to current systems) and such a large incentive might be necessary to convince anyone, no matter how capable, to give up large amounts of time and/or money to build the first blocks of infrastructure for a brand new market. I can promise you all day long that if you work with me to develop my new Monopoly money currency then I'll give you 10% of all the Monopoly money that will ever be created, but you still have to be convinced that the the idea actually has a shot at success. What incentive would you need to contribute your time to something so ambitious? 4) Another chicken and egg problem. As the market grows, liquidity will develop. As the price increases, 'hoarders' with different mindsets will be cashing out when they feel the price is high enough. The hoarding issue becomes a lesser issue the more the market grows. 5) Creating paper money requires lots of machinery. Machines run on oil. Vehicles transporting paper money to and from banks and other agencies costs money. Physical coins are heavy and require even more energy to transfer. I guarantee you it'd be a hell of a lot cheaper maintaining the Bitcoin network with a massive ASIC cluster than it would be to maintain the status quo of paper and metal. Also, don't forget, increases in computational power make for a more secure network. The real world equivalent is expensive manual labor and brick-and-mortar security systems. |
|
|
|
Even the co-founder of Bitpay gives BTC an 80% chance of failing and returning to near zero in the next few years. Until then, you might be able to make a nice return engaging in speculation, but I:m still waiting for that killer app that:s going to convince everyone to cut up their credit cards and jump onboard the train.
*chrip* *chirp*
This is a nice chicken and the egg problem. You aren't convinced about Bitcoin's chances for success because you don't see a perfect implementation of the technology yet. But, on the other hand, I'm sure you're smart enough to know that initial implementations aren't going to be perfect (this is why 747s weren't invented by the Wright brothers and why Facebook and Google weren't among the first websites). Now, I'm sure you recognize that airplanes and the Internet are essential to our modern way of life. While I think it's fair to assume that Bitcoin may be inferior to its future (or even current) siblings, do you think it's fair to write off cryptocurrencies as a whole? |
|
|
|
Phinnaeus, I'm scared. Hold me  Btw, iPhone autocorrects your name to 'oh innards'. |
|
|
|
|
The 2011 bubble up to $32 was far larger than anything else we've seen. Relatively speaking, it beats this 'bubble' by a mile. The price crashed and recovered to (now) 15x the 2011 high. And, more people are using bitcoins than ever before. Look at a logarithmic chart of price over time and then reconsider if the price is rising to quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
"It is worth thinking about money as the bubble that never ends." Awesome quote.
|
|
|
|
@haightst and @moderate Both of you registered October 26, and both of you have an absurd amount of posts during that time. You've made your points crystal clear  |
|
|
|
Just wow.
You guys are seriously complaining that you can't withdraw .005 btc that is handed away for free for site testing? You selfish little infants.
Missed the point entirely. The complaint is about running promotions without mentioning the requirements, which have been noted long ago. This site keeps repeating the same mistake, I can only guess it is intentionally. You should also read some of the earlier replies here to notice that this causes another issue: the person not being able to legitimate withdraw his funds due to use of this fake promotion. ice-dice is just luring naïve people, nothing more (let's hope that) nothing less. And if by luring naive people, I guess you're including yourself? How naive do you have to be to not know that a giveaway is supposed to lure people into visiting and testing the site? Edit: the only reason I've used Satoshi Circle is because they had a giveaway. It worked. I'm not included in that because I never subscribed to any ice-dice promotion, you are free to ahead and try to look for it. I'm just doing this because I'm tired of seeing this same crap over and over. Are you really comparing the Satoshi Circle giveaway to this one ? Satoshi Circle is completely honest and actually did have a giveaway. There is nothing being given here. This is stupid. 0.005 btc is being given to an account that you create. Hence, it's a giveaway. Just be because you can't withdraw until you bet 1.5 btc doesn't make it not a giveaway. If you deposited and bet 1.5 of your own btc, you can then withdraw the .005. I don't think you'd be upset if they gave you 1.49 btc but you couldn't withdraw it unless you bet 1.5 btc. You would deposit .01 btc, make a bet, then withdraw everything. These guys are really upset because before when the limit used to be lower, they would buy(maybe they already had) robot of twitter accounts and redeem this offer over and over again, then about 1 in 10 accounts they would be able to reach the limit and cash out about 0.1BTC. We paid out about 1.4BTC to these fake account holders before realizing its the same 2 people scamming us for money. Now the we increased the limit to 1.5BTC wager so it's harder for them to scam us money so they are now complaining and talking crap about us. That is not my case, I already pointed out why I'm upset with your service. I never used it too, I'm just making it clear how idiotic is this thing you are doing. From an outside perspective, not knowing anything else about the site, it's not idiotic. Satoshi Circle did it and I visited their site. Now Ice-Dice did it. Would you have rather they just didn't give away .005 at all? Even with the 1.5 BTC limit still imposed, would that make you satisfied? When you operate a business that offers a service, you need people using that service! What good would it do for the business to just give out free money to people who will never use its service? The idea is to allow you to test the site. That's it. You're not supposed to make a killing off a giveaway like this. This isn't a faucet; we have those already, and it's a terrible business model. This giveaway let's you play for free to test the site, after which you are supposed to say, "Wow! That was Fun!" And then you deposit your own money to have more fun. |
|
|
|
Just wow.
You guys are seriously complaining that you can't withdraw .005 btc that is handed away for free for site testing? You selfish little infants.
Missed the point entirely. The complaint is about running promotions without mentioning the requirements, which have been noted long ago. This site keeps repeating the same mistake, I can only guess it is intentionally. You should also read some of the earlier replies here to notice that this causes another issue: the person not being able to legitimate withdraw his funds due to use of this fake promotion. ice-dice is just luring naïve people, nothing more (let's hope that) nothing less. And if by luring naive people, I guess you're including yourself? How naive do you have to be to not know that a giveaway is supposed to lure people into visiting and testing the site? Edit: the only reason I've used Satoshi Circle is because they had a giveaway. It worked. I'm not included in that because I never subscribed to any ice-dice promotion, you are free to ahead and try to look for it. I'm just doing this because I'm tired of seeing this same crap over and over. Are you really comparing the Satoshi Circle giveaway to this one ? Satoshi Circle is completely honest and actually did have a giveaway. There is nothing being given here. This is stupid. 0.005 btc is being given to an account that you create. Hence, it's a giveaway. Just be because you can't withdraw until you bet 1.5 btc doesn't make it not a giveaway. If you deposited and bet 1.5 of your own btc, you can then withdraw the .005. I don't think you'd be upset if they gave you 1.49 btc but you couldn't withdraw it unless you bet 1.5 btc. You would deposit .01 btc, make a bet, then withdraw everything. |
|
|
|
Just wow.
You guys are seriously complaining that you can't withdraw .005 btc that is handed away for free for site testing? You selfish little infants.
Missed the point entirely. The complaint is about running promotions without mentioning the requirements, which have been noted long ago. This site keeps repeating the same mistake, I can only guess it is intentionally. You should also read some of the earlier replies here to notice that this causes another issue: the person not being able to legitimate withdraw his funds due to use of this fake promotion. ice-dice is just luring naïve people, nothing more (let's hope that) nothing less. I read the entire thread post by post before I commented. I agree that the requirements for withdrawal should have been stated more clearly, but this should be an irrelevant concern if you're only talking about the .005 btc (it would be different if, for example, the giveaway was contingent upon you depositing your own money first and then finding out that you can't withdraw the money you deposited). But, the giveaway is not contingent upon this and so I disagree with your position. And if by luring naive people, I guess you're including yourself? How naive do you have to be to not know that a giveaway is supposed to lure people into visiting and testing the site? Edit: the only reason I've used Satoshi Circle is because they had a giveaway. It worked. |
|
|
|
|
Just wow.
You guys are seriously complaining that you can't withdraw .005 btc that is handed away for free for site testing? You selfish little infants.
The reason behind the giveaway is obvious. In Bitcoin land, you don't just carelessly deposit money into every new site that pops up. Doing so is asking to get scammed sooner or later. So, they take the risk away from you by depositing a small amount of btc into your account so you can test the site to make sure nothing funny is going on. Once you see the site is working okay, you'll feel more comfortable about depositing your own money.
|
|
|
|
The main key here is to prove that mind can exist without a body as we known. That would be biggest step of XXI century.
If I (subject) perceive a tree (object), am I the tree? Subsequently, if I (subject) perceive my body or brain (objects), am I my body or brain? |
|
|
|
2) I provided one example out of an infinite number of examples I could have chosen. Here, I'll do three more: a - a = 0 is really (1)a - (1)a = (1)0 1 + 2 = 3 is really (1)1 + (1)2 = (1)3 "Apple" is really (1)Apple Yes, you actually can do this with math, and yes, it actually can teach you something. In this instance, math shows us that "1" is analogous to a distributive property of identity. This is interesting because it shows that for anything to exist in a mathematical landscape, each thing has a characteristic that is shared by every other. To learn more, I suggest thinking about some more interesting number relationships. Of particular interest to me, aside from the number '1', are 'zero' and 'infinity'. Take 'infinity' for instance. Since 'infinite' represents a sum but literally means "not-finite," it's obvious that some infinities can be larger than others. Consider the following scenario: "Hey Bob, I like your...yard." "Oh yeah? How big do you think it is?" "I don't know, but it looks HUGE! You know how big mine is?" "Not sure, but definitely smaller than mine." " " And there you have it. Obvious proof that some infinities are bigger than others. And can you believe that the mathematical proof of this was touted as a huge breakthrough? Give me a break. Philosophers have the one-up on scientists and mathematicians all-day everyday (because it's the only academic discipline that is comprehensive enough to include the tools of both the scientist and the mathematician). 3) Ascribing a probability to an event is akin to saying "I don't know." Knowing that you can't know is still knowing. It also makes for a better surprise. 4) If you were a microbe on an elephant's butt, would you know that the ground you're walking on is an elephant? Jesus Christ! OK, I'm not going to be kind any more. Your logic is absolutely shocking and what's more, you are well aware of it. You are deliberately deceptive and will be treated as such by me from now on. You aren't interested in truth at all. You just want to play with people. Multiplying something by 1 only means you are saying there is one of this thing. Nothing more. It does not mean those things have a characteristic in common. Infinity is an idea, not a number. Having some infinites be bigger than others is complete nonsense. It's like when my brother used to say I hate you infinity + 1 times in response to my I hate you infinity. It's not a number, it doesn't have a size. I'll bet you don't even try to get away with this crap in real life. Just come on to a forum and think you'll have a little fun with people. Is that it? While the infinity example was obviously intended to be humorous, please tell me you're aware that there is a mathematical proof demonstrating some infinities are larger than others. Furthermore, if we can agree that any number, entity, concept multiplied by 1 is itself, then it should be obvious that this is a shared characteristic. And by the way, a number is an idea too. You ever seen a "2" in nature? Neither have I. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
