Schweinhund posted:

infinity isn't an integer

NOG posted:

So it can't even be applied to math? How about a NUMBER between 0 and infinity?

NOG posted:

If you could truly have something pick a integer between 0 and infinity, is the function possible at all to begin with? The range is infinity, so would the result always be infinity?

NOG posted:

If you could truly have something pick a integer between 0 and infinity, is the function possible at all to begin with? The range is infinity, so would the result always be infinity?

haveblue posted:

You can't start at zero and reach infinity by any arithmetic process, so there's no way to ask that question.

kapalama posted:

"It's your birthday, go (insert person's name), go (insert person's name)" gets used a lot in media as somethign shouted at people dancing.

Is there a particular source for this?

In Da Club, by 50 Cent posted:

Go, go, go, go
Go, go, go shawty
It's your birthday
We gon' party like it's yo birthday
We gon' sip Bacardi like it's your birthday
And you know we don't give a gently caress
It's not your birthday!

Zegnar posted:

haveblue posted:

You can't start at zero and reach infinity by any arithmetic process, so there's no way to ask that question.

Elijya posted:

By "something", do you mean a program of some kind? In theory, just one attempt would break the drat thing, since it would inevitably select a number waaaaaaaaaaaay outside it's capabilities to calculate or display. Whatever the limits for its capabilities are, that's a finite number, with the numbers beyond it's capabilities still being infinite.

Essentially, the probability of it selecting a number it would be capable of displaying are 1/infinity% which goes to zero.

ZarathustraFollower posted:

Real fast, the range is always written as < (infinity), and you can never take a function 'at infinity' just the limit as x (or y or z) approaches infinite.

Infinity is also not equal to infinity (for example, limit 2n as compared to limit of n, both go to infinity, n>1, but the former grows at twice the rate of the second.)

Most straightforward, the fact you can pick an integer from zero to near infinity, specifically means that the function is defined for all real numbers (rather than some other specific domain)

And a range of up to infinity does not preclude an infinite sum. It may drat well converge on some finite number.

kapalama posted:

Only because infinity is not a destination. It's not at all clear that it is impossible to traverse an infinity; it is only clear that infinity is not a destination.

It's tautology to make the claim that infinities are not traversable; it just comes down to whether you want to claim that existence is created in time or eternal. "Now" is a destination. If the universe is eternal, then we have already traversed an eternity to get here.

Zegnar posted:

stubblyhead posted:

Sorry, the it's your birthday thing predates 50 Cent by a long time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvNDimHIfws

Pontius Pilate posted:

Plenty of British actors can do a very convincing American accent. With people like Hugh Laurie (Dr. House) I would never be able to tell that they aren't native American English speakers. Maybe because people receive much more exposure to the American English accent than Australian accents? I dunno.

Edit: Looking over your post again, I'm not sure if you're asking about non-English speakers attempting to get the accent right or English speakers with different accents attempting to get a certain accent right. If it's the former, then that is much more difficult and I can't think of any actors off the top of my head that fit the criteria.

Emmjay posted:

A quick question about accents in movies and on TV. When a foreign actor speaks in your native language, are you always able to tell that they are not native speakers? I'm Australian and I've never seen an actor do a convincing Aussie accent - is that because the accent is difficult to do or because a non-native speaker can never totally get an accent right?

Pontius Pilate posted:

Plenty of British actors can do a very convincing American accent. With people like Hugh Laurie (Dr. House) I would never be able to tell that they aren't native American English speakers. Maybe because people receive much more exposure to the American English accent than Australian accents? I dunno.

ClearAirTurbulence posted:

Hugh Laurie's American accent is pretty good, but it's not convincing because he mixes pronunciations from all kinds of American English. The writers of the show have explained this by saying he traveled a lot as a child (I think in the military, I don't follow the show) but that doesn't usually give people an accent that combines all the different ways of talking from where you've lived. Your accent usually combines what you heard as a small child with where you've been living for the last 5 years or so.

nWoCHRISnWo posted:

This is undoubtedly on the stupid end of questions here-

I know there's a forum for this kind of stuff, but I'm sure I'm one of the only idiots nowadays that doesn't know this, so anyone here will be able to answer this. I'm completely lost when it comes to high definition technology. For example, if I get a high-def tv, will EVERY tv show look a lot better? If so, what about high-def shows (like specifically advertised HD football) are those just another step better looking?

And how about video games? I understand old video game systems might not look great or even work on newer tvs (right?), but do new games look better on HD tvs?

Pontius Pilate posted:

Huh that's interesting. I don't watch the show frequently so I never picked up on that. So what Brits can do it the best?

Golbez posted:

The ten cent tour:

Standard-def TVs (SDTV) can only display a certain, lower resolution, of, I believe, 640x480. They are interlaced, meaning every other line is drawn with each refresh, and are referred to as 480i (480 interlaced lines). SDTV shows are sent in this resolution. SD shows and TVs operate on a 4:3 ratio; they would be 4 feet wide if 3 feet tall.

High-def TVs (HDTV) can display higher resolutions, much nicer than 480i, and also are wider screen: Generally 16:9 or 16:10. The resolutions you're dealing with are 720p (1280x720, progressive, meaning it draws every line each frame, rather than every other line, leading to less flicker and smoother movement), 1080i (1920x1080, interlaced) and 1080p (1920x1080, progressive). Note that while Blu-rays, games, and some satellites may support 1080p, it is not used by any other broadcast method. 720p and 1080i are generally interchangeable, though some will say one is better for certain action than the other. I haven't looked hard enough to try to tell the difference.

Another benefit of progressive vs interlaced: SD TV is 60 frames per second, but interlaced, so each line is only being redrawn 30 times a second. 720p draws every line 60 times a second, making for smoother video.

SD shows will not look better on a HD TV. Some might say they look even worse; most SD shows were made back when the CRT, not the LCD, was the norm, and were designed around its limitations. Viewing them on an LCD makes those flaws that much more apparent.

HD shows will look amazing on an HDTV. They are not receivable on an SDTV.

The XBox 360 and PS3 support HD resolutions; the Wii unfortunately does not, though it does support widescreen SD. Hooking the 360 or PS3 up to an HDTV will look amazing. Older, non-HD, systems will look generally worse on an HDTV than a CRT simply because, again, they were designed around the limitations of a CRT. Specifically, the pixel size is different, and also with older games you could expect a certain amount of blurriness, unlike the sharp pixels of today. This is why many people like to turn scanlines on in emulators when playing on a modern PC, to bring back that look rather than just have a sea of perfect, sharp, 8-bit color.

tl;dr:
An old episode of Seinfeld will look okay on an SDTV
An old episode of Seinfeld will look the same on an HDTV
An SD broadcast of Monday Night Football will look okay on an SDTV
An SD broadcast of Monday Night Football will look the same on an HDTV
An HD broadcast of Monday Night Football will look amazing on an HDTV (it's not just a tiny step up)
A Wii game will look good on an SDTV
A Wii game will look better on an HDTV
A 360/PS3 game will look okay on an SDTV (ever tried to read the text in Dead Rising on one? I don't recommend it)
A 360/PS3 game will look amazing on an HDTV

If you're familiar with computer graphics, it's almost the same as the jump from 640x480 to 1920x1080. That's a big jump, and that's what's happening to your TV when you go from standard to high def. Doom won't look too awesome at 1920x1080, but Modern Warfare 2 looks a hell of a lot better at 1920x1080 than at 640x480.

wheres my arm posted:

Can I burn a .dmg file to disc in Windows? The articles I found with Google all seem outdated.

DRP Solved! posted:

But vitamin C doesn't do anything to treat symptoms or decrease the duration of a cold/flu/any illness other than scurvy, so what's the point?

tl;dr High doses of vitamin C are dumb and pointless.

Gravity Pike posted:

Probably. However, the effect-size of placebos has doubled over the past 20 years or so, and Vitamin C might be helpful, and it's certainly not harmful, so why not?

Bloody Mayhem posted:

A non-goon friend of mine needs a recommendation for a digital camera.

He's leaving this coming January for a world-wide, long term backpacking trip (a year or more), starting with Latin America. He'd like a semi-automatic digital camera with an excellent resolution, but user-friendly enough for a beginner. He'll probably be camping a lot and so he won't have regular access to electricity. Hence, he'd need a good battery life (he's wondering about solar power, but I'm not sure such a thing exists for cameras). Travel friendly size also a plus.

He's got a 600$ budget. Ideas?

Tostito posted:

I have Rosetta Stone French. Should I skip French 101 (which does not count towards my gen ed), opting instead to complete Rosetta Stone before going into 102 like a pro? I'm inquiring because I believe 101 will be a giant waste of my time if I can just skip to 102 with a solid Stoned up background.

The only reason I would take 101 would be to solidify my skills. Basically I'm asking if anyone has experience using rosetta stone. I know very little french.

Emmjay posted:

A quick question about accents in movies and on TV. When a foreign actor speaks in your native language, are you always able to tell that they are not native speakers? I'm Australian and I've never seen an actor do a convincing Aussie accent - is that because the accent is difficult to do or because a non-native speaker can never totally get an accent right?

ZarathustraFollower posted:

I've seen solar powered battery chargers for regular AA batteries, so that might be a workaround.

Bloody Mayhem posted:

I googled it and those were the first result I got: http://www.solio.com/charger/solio-charger-comparison-chart.html. The site looks nice and the price is reasonable (~100$). But I have no idea if they're any good or not. In any case, it'll have to do, because I've never seen solar-powered cameras (except surveillance stuff). That or he'll have to carry around with him a shitload of batteries.

Battery time notwithstanding, any recs for the actual camera?

Luffles posted:

Can my apartment complex force me into a specific ISP? I assume they get some sort of kickback and don't want me to leave it, but FiOS is available here and I hope that I'm not actually stuck with Bright House at this new apartment.