Sly_Wizard

The answer to what's the equivalent of 1.111... is "yes"? o_O

10/9. Please don't continue. I'm only bumping this because I forgot about this thread. That didn't really answer my question, you know. 10/9 = 1.111... 1.111 * .9 = .999... Therefore, 1.111... = .999...? <_< #-o (I was going to look up a facepalm picture but am too lazy). I know you'll need an explanation: 1.11... = 10/9 .9 = 9/10 10/9 * 9/10 obviously equals one. How you thought the "Therefore 1.11...=.99..." was the next part I have no idea. I don't need an explanation. I'm not that dumb, and I wasn't being totally serious with the whole 1.111 = .999 thing (Hence the "<_<" at the end). In my initial question, I asked what 1.111... was equal to and I got 10/9, which is about as helpful as saying 9/9 equals one. It's assumed that every non-repeating number has an equivalent which can be expressed with 9's (i.e., .8904 = .89039...), right? Well, I was simply asking how that would rule be replied in reverse (i.e., what's the equivalent to a repeating number which doesn't end in 9's). A fairly simple question :P

10/9. Please don't continue. I'm only bumping this because I forgot about this thread. That didn't really answer my question, you know. 10/9 = 1.111... 1.111 * .9 = .999... Therefore, 1.111... = 1 = .999...? <_<

I forgot about that thread^ *goes to find it*

Yeah, please post a reason for your opinions or you'll end up with the reputation of Robert. Anyway, you say torture is torture, but you still haven't proven to me that it's torture. There's no harm being done to the person it's happening to. Because I say it's not, that's why. And, yes, that's a perfectly valid reason. The problem with the "It's torture!" crowd is that, by following the logic that any physical, mental or emotional pain inflicted on someone solely to obtain information is torture, then any way used to glean information from someone which isn't, "Would you be so kind as to tell me what you know?" would have to be, by it's very definition, also torture. Ergo, there would be no legal was to find out what someone knows, as anything involving any means of coercion would have to be wrong and the CIA, FBI and pretty much ever intelligence agency would be out of a job. *shrugs* So, to avoid all of this, let's just say its not torture. Please tell me how asking someone questions inflicts pain and lasting effects I believe I said that the only thing which couldn't be deemed torture to be asking someone to kindly tell you anything they know. Of course, that has about a .0000000% chance of actually working, which is infinitely less than torture's success rate.

Yeah, please post a reason for your opinions or you'll end up with the reputation of Robert. Anyway, you say torture is torture, but you still haven't proven to me that it's torture. There's no harm being done to the person it's happening to. Because I say it's not, that's why. And, yes, that's a perfectly valid reason. The problem with the "It's torture!" crowd is that, by following the logic that any physical, mental or emotional pain inflicted on someone solely to obtain information is torture, then any way used to glean information from someone which isn't, "Would you be so kind as to tell me what you know?" would have to be, by it's very definition, also torture. Ergo, there would be no legal was to find out what someone knows, as anything involving any means of coercion would have to be wrong and the CIA, FBI and pretty much ever intelligence agency would be out of a job. *shrugs* So, to avoid all of this, let's just say its not torture.

It's not torture.

So, what is 1.111... equal to?

U.S. Government: "Hey there, Mr. Terrorist. Would you be so nice as to tell us what attacks you have planned for the future?" (Suspected) Terrorist: "No." U.S. Government: "Oh, okay then. You're free to go. Have a nice day." ~~~ As I said on the first page (Which was ignored) once the terrorists start following the rules of conventional warfare (i.e., not specifically attacking civilians, for one), then they're fair game as far as torture is concerned. I'd rather torture a few terrorists in hopes of getting information needed to prevent a future attack then not and have no hopes of preventing a future attack. Why should we play nice if they're not going to? You know where nice guys end up in war?

Porn would be the least of my worries :lol:

Torture away :thumbsup: No, seriously. Terrorists (And most liberals) who scream about how unfair torture is and mention the Geneva Convention need to scream at the terrorists for not following convential war practices.

Al Gore. He invented the internet, and God knows how life would suck without the internet.

Regarding something I saw earlier, there's a difference between being on life support and being fed through a tube. There are a plethora of reasons why someone would need to be fed through a tube that have nothing to do with them being on life support.

Another person with the whole "human beings are special!" complex. It doesn't matter what you think. There's only one requirement to being human (Belong to the genus homo and species, sapien), and absolutely none of the stuff you typed out makes something more or less human than someone else. A person born without hands to use is still a human. A person born suffering from autism or Down's Syndrome is still human. A person born with a partial brain is still human. In Latin Homo Sapien means "Wise Human" or "Knowing Human". Since this child quite literally has no brain, it cannot be classified as human being. A human body yes, but not a human being. Hooray for playing a game of semantics and ignoring the whole "anything which belongs to this taxonomy is human" thing. But, anyway, you also seem to be equally ignoring the fact that anencephaly is a condition which affects humans (As well as other organisms); not a condition which causes humans to cease being humans.

Another person with the whole "human beings are special!" complex. It doesn't matter what you think. There's only one requirement to being human (Belong to the genus homo and species, sapien), and absolutely none of the stuff you typed out makes something more or less human than someone else. A person born without hands to use is still a human. A person born suffering from autism or Down's Syndrome is still human. A person born with a partial brain is still human.

I find it funny that PH doesn't know which Carolina won.

I'd just like to point out that the baby is still a human.

Adult stem cell research: A-okay Cultivating stem cells from the umbilical cord: A-okay Embryonic stem cell reserach: Bad People won't rest until someone implanted with embryonic stem cells to fight/cure and develops cancer. Just you wait.

It's not on any kind of tubes or life support, so what's the problem? And *smh* @ the guy who said kill it.

You haven't been reading what Perez Hilton has been writing, obviously <_< (He reffered to her as a "dumb [bleep]", just so you know.) Anywho, Perez Hilton is a moron for asking such a loaded question. If you don't want to hear the answer to a question, then don't ask it. It's as simple as that.

Well, let's see here. Iirc, Texas has something like a $10B surplus (SEE THAT CALIFORNIA??? MAYBE YOU COULD LEARN A THING OR TWO!!!), plenty of arable land and this little thing called a propane industry. If small countries like Sweden can exist, then Texas should be just fine on their own.

Nothing will happen and it'll be the same as always.

Waste of time, imo. But the U.N. is good for supporting stuff this kinda' stuff (I.e., things which don't require any kind of force or military action), so this doesn't surprise me. It's more-or-less an "all talk and pretty much nothing else" organization.

*points and laughs* That's all I have to add here.

I've always found it funny how gay marriage topics gets tons of pages which usually devolve into religious debates. Oh, and rock on 12 year old dude (Minus the whole Satan thing).